Nelly Maes

President of the European Free Alliance

European Political Party

To the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

Palais de l’Europe, Avenue de l’Europe,

F-67075Strasbourg Cedex,

France

Brussels, the 13th of November 2006

To:  The Chairman of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe

To: The Russian Presidency and the San Marino Presidency

We request the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to look into a series of anomalies in the Republic of Bulgaria. We refer to 23 questions on page 5-7 of this letter.

But before I draw your attention to those 23 concluding questions I start with an overview of the relevant facts

The following is a statement of the relevant facts related to the founding of the political party OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN on the 25th of June 2006 in Gotse Delchev and the procedure on its registration by the Sofia City Court.

The political party OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN was declared, by a judgment of the Constitutional Court of Bulgaria of 29 February 2000, to violate the law on the prohibition of organizations threatening the territorial integrity of the country (Article 43 of the Constitution). On the basis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court, the Sofia City Court annulled the registration of the party in October 2000. An appeal to this judgment of the Constitutional Court was issued and introduced at to the European Court of Human Rights. On the 20th of  October 2005 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg decided that the ban of the political party was  a violation of the right to freedom of association. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights came into effect on the 20th of January 2006.

Under Bulgarian law, constitutional norms have priority over international law (see Article 5 of the Constitution). For this reason, the domestic courts could not, on the basis of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, reverse the judgment of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court and re-register the party. The domestic law on political parties has also been significantly amended in the meantime. Thus, the only possibility to give effect of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was to have the party founded again, following the procedures prescribed by the newly adopted law on political parties. This was done with a declaration, announcing the initiation of the procedure on founding the political party OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN, published in the daily newspaper Dnevnik. The declaration announced the founding meeting for the 25th of June 2006 in Gotse Delchev, at which meeting the party was founded and its bylaws adopted.

The founding of the political party was followed by  a campaign of wide and very hostile publicity in the Bulgarian media. The Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly criticized the involvement of a Bulgarian citizen working for the Cultural Centre of the Republic of Macedonia in Sofia supporting OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN. He also made a statement that states that Bulgaria will only support the EU accession of the Republic of Macedonia depending  on the fact that the Republic of Macedonia  would distance itself from OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN.

In the beginning of November he also made a statement that Bulgaria is under no obligation to register OMO Ilinden PIRIN as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but is only to pay, what he called a “fine”.

On the 20th of September 2006, the documents related to the registration of the party were submitted to the Sofia City Court, the national court competent for registering political parties. The Court initially scheduled a hearing for the 8th of November 2006. This date was later changed, for an earlier date, namely on the 18th of October 2006. The leaders of the party were summoned for the 18th of October 2006 court hearing, only four days prior to the session which is 3 days later than the statutory required seven days prior notice.

Following the submission of the documents to the court, with included the lists of all the founding members and other members of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN, the leaders of the party started receiving complaints from their members, entered in those lists, that they have been intimidated. Complaints indicated that members of the party were approached by persons, introducing themselves as working for the Ministry of Interior, who inquired about their membership and threatened them that they will suffer negative consequences as a result of their membership in the party. Threats included loss of a job, businesses facing difficulties from authorities, students being expelled.

At the court hearing, the Sofia Prosecution Office submitted a large number of documents. The lawyer of the party was denied the right to verify the documents in detail. He was only given an hour time to prepare his plea. The documents included one expert report, analyzing the handwriting in the declarations of membership of the founding members and their signatures; concluding that a number of declarations were written by the same individual. The report also concluded that there were differences in the signatures on the list of members and on the individual declaration with respect to a number of individuals.

A report was also submitted, describing deficiencies in the information on some of the 5600 members of the party, like missing identity numbers and incorrect addresses. The Prosecution Office submitted also copies of  66 handwritten declarations by members of the party. The content of those declarations was exactly the same but could generally be summarized as members distancing themselves from OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN. They were declaring that they did not know whether they were members of the party, that they were not members of the “unlawful” party, that they did not know its program and that they did not approve of its policies. The name of the party was written in those declarations in a variety of ways.

The lawyer of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN requested an adjournment of the hearing, to be able to study the documents and comment on them. The request was denied by the court.

The lawyer of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN also objected to accept the submitted expert report on the handwriting in the declarations of membership and the signatures in evidence. The ground for that objection was that under Bulgarian law any dispute about the authenticity of evidence submitted in registration proceedings has to be considered in separate court proceedings. The reason for this is that in registration proceedings it is not possible to call and question witnesses or expert witnesses. The objection of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN against taking the expert report in evidence was that it was not possible to cross examine the expert witness about the questions he had raised, the evidence he used as a basis to reach to his conclusions and about his conclusions itself. The objection was overruled by the court and the expert report was accepted in evidence, without a possibility for cross  examination.

The lawyer of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN asked also to be given the opportunity to submit documents, in response to the documents submitted by the Prosecution Office. More specifically he  requested to be allowed by the court to submit the originals of declarations of membership, lists of members and information correcting identity numbers and addresses of members of the party, where such information was incorrect or missing. The request was rejected by the court, which declared the case closed.

On the 30th of October 2006, the Sofia City Court delivered its judgment, refusing to register OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN. The main reason given by the Court for the refusal was based on the expert report on the handwriting and the signatures in the declarations of membership. According to Article 11 of the Political Parties Act. Any such declaration should be handwritten by its author. As the expert report concluded that the handwriting in a number of those declarations was identical, the court concluded that apparently they were not handwritten by their authors. The court concluded that the declarations being signed by their authors was not sufficient, as the law explicitly required that they were handwritten by their authors. The court further reasoned that if the number of handwritten declarations of the founders of the political party was smaller, the number of individuals present at the founding meeting was also not sufficient, making the founding meeting unlawful.

The Court noted also a number of other deficiencies in the submitted documents. Lack of certified bylaws, lack of proper abbreviation of the name of the party, missing information on the lists of members of the party, lack of a depiction of the sign (logo) of the party, possible use of the star of Virgina/Kutlesh as a sign of the party, which is an official symbol of Greece and thus would be prohibited by the Bulgarian law on political parties, lack of precise description of certain powers of the leadership of the party in the bylaws.

On the 9th of November only the Party received the decision of the Court of the 30th of October. In the media there had been reactions and quotes on the decision for over a week while the party went to the court every day to ask the written conclusions of the Court in order to prepare an appeal. They only received the conclusions some hours before the expiration of the 7 working days deadline.

On the 9th of  November 2006 the lawyer of  OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN appealed the judgment of the Sofia City Court. The appeal argued that the acceptance of the expert report and the refusal of the request to submit further evidence in support of the registration was a serious procedural violation. It denied OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN a fair procedure and an opportunity to submit all the relevant evidence. The appeal argued that the grounds on which the request was rejected could either be that they were not well founded or that by allowing remediation, OMO Ilinden PIRIN could submit further evidence. The appeal requested that the Supreme Court of Cassation would send the case back for a re-hearing, and instruct the Sofia City Court to give the applicants an opportunity to submit additional evidence.

In the light of all these developments, OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN is extremely concerned bout the behavior of the Bulgarian authorities and their unwillingness to guarantee to the party and its members full respect  of their freedom of association. OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN's major concern is that despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and its best efforts to bring it into effect, the Bulgarian authorities might still block its registration. Although such a development might again be challenged before the European Court of Human Rights, this would take another five years, during which the party and its members would be denied their basic rights.

To avoid such a development, OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN calls on the Committee of Ministers to take all necessary measures for the proper enforcement of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 October 2005.  More specifically, it would like to see the Bulgarian Government publicly retract its earlier statements that it is under no obligation to register the party. Furthermore, the Bulgarian Government should publicly state that it would not interfere with the freedom of choice of members of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN. They have the right to choose in accordance with their free will which  party they would affiliate. The Bulgarian authorities should take measures to guarantee the free exercise of that right.

More specifically, we request the Committee of Ministers to thoroughly investigate and report the results of such investigations to the European Commission and to the President of Bulgaria on the following elements and to take all necessary action to force Bulgaria to comply with international laws on human rights:

1.      The unwillingness of the Bulgarian authorities to review the judgement of the Constitutional Court of the 29 th of February 2000, illegalizing the OMO Ilinden Pirin party;

2.      The unwillingness of the Bulgarian state to comply with the decision of the 20th of October 2005 of the European Court of Human Rights to accept the registration of the party (breach of article 11 on the freedom of association);

3.      The unwillingness of the Bulgarian state to comply with the decision of the 20th of October 2005 of the European Court of Human Rights to pay the sum of 12.000€;

4.      The unwillingness of the Bulgarian state to accept the decision of the ECHR that says that “in a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenged the existing order and whose realisation was advocated by peaceful means had to be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly, as well as by other lawful means”.

5.      The biased interpretation by the authorities of article 44 of the Bulgarian Constitution. On the one hand they use the article 44 to state that OMO Ilinden Pirin is a threat to the country although the ECHR decided otherwise and on the other hand the non-action of the authorities against other organisations (like VMRO) who openly spread hatred, racism and violence against the OMO Ilinden Party. This is a clear breach of the article 6 of the Bulgarian Constitution;

6.      The non action of the government to hate campaigns can be considered as compliance of the state to hate and discrimination. Here are some of the published opinions published only hours after the conclusion:

*The Regional co-coordinator of the fourth most influential Bulgarian parliamentary party "Ataka"("Attack") stated on the radio that the leaders of OMO "Ilinden "- PIRIN should be jailed. ”We from "Attack" in The Balgoevgrad region will make everything possible not to allow the registration of OMO "Ilinden "- PIRIN."

            * The municipality adviser in Varna, Veselin Danov, said that “THEY have to be       shot on the street”, the deputies Boris Iachev and Krasimir Karakachanov called   “that    THEY have to be send straight into prison” and the mayor of Blagoevgrad,     Lazar Prichkapov requested “all Macedonians to be expelled from Bulgaria”.

7.      The informal and unofficial declarations of the authorities that the Bulgarian Constitution overrules any European Court of Human Rights decision, forcing the party OMO Ilinden Pirin into a new registration procedure;

8.  The policy of obstruction of the Bulgarian authorities adapting the domestic law on political parties eacht time the party OMO Ilinden Pirin proves to be able to meet all criteria;

9. The illegal arrest of one of the Presidents of the party on the 9th of September and the confiscation of a list with 500 member names, addresses,…

10. The unwillingness of the juridical services to treat the complaint of the party on this illegal arrest in due cause;

11. The attempt to “illegaly” confiscate all the 5600 signatures without any search or other warrant the evenig before the party introduced their dossier;

12. The unwillingness of the authorities to act upon the 3 issued complaints by the party in due cause on this attempt to confiscate the dossier;

13. The activities of the governement of Bulgaria and of the staff of the Ministry of Interior intimidating members of OMO “Ilinden”-PIRIN, requesting them to retract their membership;

14. The procedural error that was made while fixing the first date of the court hearing sheduled by the Court itself on the 8th of November which was after the expiration of the legal deadline of one month after the introduction of the dossier on the 20th of September 2006;

15. The procedural error that was made not respecting a 7 days prior notice to the court hearing of the 18th of October herewith changing the date of the 8th of November;

16. The procedurial error that was made not giving any time to the lawyer of the defense party to study the dossier of the prosecutor;

17. The procedural error that was made in Court stating that there was evidence that signatures were “bought” by the Party. The complaint came from an extremist racist party based on some newspaper articles only;

18. The procedural error that was made by the Court not to accept the lawyer of the defense party to interrogate the expert who had made the report on which the decision of the court was based;

19. The procedural error that was made by the Court not sending the final conclusions of the decision of the 30th of October to the Party in due cause. They only received the decision a few hours before the expiration of the dealine to appeal;

20. The fact that the authorities have not requested for an internal investigation within the Court since some responsibles working there leaked relevant information to the press, who published this, while the party was withheld this vital information;

21. The unwillingness of the State authorities to act upon all these anomalies;

22. The willingness of the state to force the OMO Ilinden Pirin Party into a new an third! ECHR procedure which will last for many months or even years unabeling the party to work within a legal framework. It is very likely that a new ruling of the ECHR will again condemn the Bulgarian state

23. The fact that even after 2 clear rulings of the ECHR, the Counsil of Europe fails to have Bulgaria comply with the rules of this respected European Institution;

With respect

On behalf of the OMO Ilinden Pirin Presidency Angel Bezev, Ivan Singartijski, Botyo Vangelov, Stojko Stojkov

13.11.2006, Brussels

NELLY MAES

PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL PARTY

EUROPEAN FREE ALLIANCE

(European Free Alliance) Map showing the Cultures and Languages in the E.U.

Abecedar