Freedom of association

It was reported that the legal environment for CSOs in Bulgaria in recent years had generally been functioning well. However, the accessibility of public funding was a serious issue for Bulgarian CSOs. Since 2010 a coalition of CSOs had sought a new strategy for the partnership between the authorities and civil society, as well as the establishment of a new fund for civil society initiatives. The strategy was adopted in 2012; the fund had not yet been established.

Furthermore, the small number of available funding mechanisms for CSOs in the Ministries of Labour and Justice were affected by the political environment and according the CSOs there was not sufficient public funding available for civil society initiatives in Bulgaria. The largest source of public funding for CSOs (around EUR 10 million) was earmarked for social services, 20% of which were delivered by CSOs. However, this was not regarded as civic activism as such. At the municipal level, some municipalities (15-20) in Bulgaria had good examples of established programmes supporting local municipal civic participation projects, even though these were poorly funded.

With regard to the accessibility of EU funding, two points were raised by civil society representatives: 1) the turnover of around 80% of CSOs was too small (below 50 000 leva per year) to be eligible to apply for EU funding; 2) the de minimis rule (for state aid) was applicable to all projects that supported civil society activities. From the financial point of view, civil society was not an equal partner to the state, hence EU funding was largely inaccessible to Bulgarian CSOs.

Some “fake” CSOs (with only 2-3 members) were reported to exist in Bulgaria. Their aim was to create a “fake” alternative to more established CSOs. Some of these organisations were involved in creating a climate of anti-European rhetoric, the promotion of anti-liberal, conservative values, and abetting foreign influence. Some CSOs were afraid that a “foreign agents” law might be introduced in Bulgaria. Furthermore, attacks and smear campaigns against CSOs were reported, including against those CSOs that had supported the adoption of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). Environmental CSOs that opposed large infrastructure projects which threatened the environment were denied funding from the Ministry for the Environment. In addition, calls had been made for the largest human rights CSO of the country to be closed down.

The public consultation process on new legislation in Bulgaria was seen as too narrow and insufficiently transparent. The rules on performing impact assessments and public consultations for new legislation were not always followed. According to the law, CSOs had a month following the submission of a bill to make comments or suggest changes. However, the bill might then undergo profound changes between the first and second readings, meaning that the outcome of the public consultation was no longer meaningful.

Government representatives reported that Bulgaria complied with the requirements for public consultations with stakeholders. The law set out the provisions that public consultations had to follow, and these provisions were applied to all draft bills. Furthermore, prior to the presentation of any bill, a full impact assessment was always carried out.