Proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code concerning offences committed by minors

The amendments proposed at the time of this article concerned Chapter Thirty of the Bulgarian Criminal Procedure Code, which sets out special rules for cases involving offences committed by minors. The proposals would allow the investigating authorities and the prosecution to refrain from notifying relatives or, if the child was a pupil, teachers of the child’s detention. This possibility posed a particular risk to young people. For that reason President Rumen Radev vetoed the bill, returning it for reconsideration by the parliamentary committee. Under the rules in force at the time, the detained person’s family was to be notified immediately, as was the employer if the person so wished. Where a minor was detained, the parents or guardians had to be informed immediately after detention, as did the head of the educational institution if the minor was a pupil. The proposed change was an exception to the existing rule: notification could be deferred in the interests of protecting the detained person’s rights and interests. The bill did not, however, define whose detention could be kept undisclosed for up to 24 hours. According to the reasons given for the veto, measures against crime and terrorism required precision and express conditions that the proposal lacked. Notifying relatives is one means of protecting a detained person’s interests and preventing ill-treatment, as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.

Notification of relatives is also directly connected to the right to legal representation during proceedings. The defence safeguards fundamental rights, including personal inviolability, and helps ensure the proceedings are lawful. Bulgaria’s Constitution requires parents to care for their minor children and exercise supervision over them, and requires the State to support parents in doing so. The Presidency was concerned that the vague wording could turn the exception into the rule. This would be incompatible with the constitutional requirement to avoid unjustified restrictions on a detained person’s rights, including the right to work if the employer is not informed of the detention.