Homepage
What we do
News and Publications
News
When a Family’s Only Home Is at Risk: Why Bulgaria Needs Safeguards, Not Just Bulldozers
Back

When a Family’s Only Home Is at Risk: Why Bulgaria Needs Safeguards, Not Just Bulldozers

13.08.2026

Upholding urban planning laws and protecting fundamental rights are not competing objectives—they are both obligations of a democratic state.
Maria Metodieva

At Trust for Social Achievement, Maria has led the development of innovative solutions addressing long-standing housing challenges in informal Roma communities, including urban planning, housing security, and access to public services. This work has received national and international recognition, including the Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements Award for TSA's urban planning model.

Every year, more than 2 million people around the world lose their homes because of forced evictions and demolitions. Over the past two decades, an estimated 64 million people have been displaced from informal settlements. Behind each number is a family that suddenly loses not only a roof, but also stability, security, access to school, healthcare, work and community.

Bulgaria is no stranger to this reality.

The recent demolitions in Stara Zagora once again brought housing insecurity into the public spotlight. Similar events have taken place in Sofia's Zaharna Fabrika neighbourhood, as well as in municipalities across the country over the years. Each case sparks the same public debate. Were the buildings legal? Should municipalities enforce urban planning laws? Who bears responsibility?

These are legitimate questions. Yet they overlook a more fundamental one

What safeguards should exist before the state demolishes the only home a family has

The recent demolitions in Stara Zagora have once again underscored the importance of this question. Similar situations have unfolded in Sofia's Zaharna Fabrika neighbourhood, in Plovdiv, Burgas, Varna and many other municipalities over the past decades. The pattern is strikingly consistent: local authorities issue demolition orders, residents challenge them, courts intervene or fail to intervene, and families suddenly find themselves without a home.

The debate usually ends there. It should begin there.

This is not simply a question of legality

Public discussion often assumes that the issue is straightforward. The buildings are illegal. Therefore, they should be demolished. But legality alone cannot answer every public policy question.

European democracies routinely face situations where different legitimate interests collide. Property rights, urban planning, environmental protection, children's rights, public health and social protection frequently require governments to balance competing interests rather than pursue one objective in isolation.

Housing is no different.

A house may have been constructed without the necessary permits. Yet it may also be the only residence of a family that has lived there for forty or fifty years, invested its savings into improving it, connected informally to infrastructure because no legal alternative existed, and raised several generations under its roof.

Recognizing these realities does not excuse unlawful construction. It recognizes that the consequences of enforcing the law must themselves remain lawful.

The state's responsibility predates today’s demolition

Many informal settlements in Bulgaria did not emerge overnight. Their origins stretch back decades. During the socialist period, many Roma families were relocated, settled or tolerated in areas that lacked proper planning and infrastructure. After 1989, municipalities rarely developed comprehensive strategies to regulate these neighbourhoods, extend infrastructure, resolve land ownership issues or create realistic pathways towards legalization.

For decades, local authorities largely tolerated these settlements while residents continued investing in their homes and communities. Today, many of those same authorities argue that the existence of informal housing is solely the responsibility of the people living there. This ignores a fundamental reality.

The current situation is the result of decades of institutional inaction shared across successive governments and municipalities. Citizens should not bear the full consequences of failures that accumulated over generations.

European law already provides the answer

Contrary to popular belief, neither European nor Bulgarian law requires or prohibits authorities from removing illegal buildings. What European human rights law requires is something different. It requires proportionality.

In its landmark judgment Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria (2012), the European Court of Human Rights found that even where homes have been built unlawfully, authorities cannot automatically proceed with eviction or demolition simply because domestic law allows it. They must assess the proportionality of the measure and consider its impact on the people affected, particularly where families have lived there for many years. The Court stressed that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects respect for one's home, regardless of the formal legality of the building. Similar principles were reaffirmed in Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria (2021).\

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly called on Bulgaria to  strengthen safeguards against forced evictions, address long-standing informal settlements through durable housing solutions, and ensure that enforcement actions do not result in homelessness.

These are not political recommendations. They are standards of democratic governance.

The missing safeguard

The real gap in Bulgaria is not legislation allowing demolition. The gap is the absence of a predictable process before demolition occurs.

A system of safeguards could include:

  • an individual assessment of each household before demolition;
  • consideration of the length of residence and vulnerability of those affected;
  • genuine consultation with residents;
  • assessment of whether legalization or regularization is feasible;
  • coordination between municipalities, social services and central government;
  • temporary accommodation that preserves family unity and dignity;
  • long-term housing solutions where demolition cannot reasonably be avoided.

None of these measures prevent municipalities from enforcing planning law. They simply ensure that enforcement is compatible with fundamental rights.

Housing security is also good public policy

There is another reason why safeguards matter.

  • Homelessness creates costs that extend far beyond the affected families.
  • Children's education is disrupted.
  • Access to healthcare deteriorates.
  • Employment becomes more difficult to maintain.
  • Municipal social services become overwhelmed.
  • Trust between communities and institutions deteriorates further.
  • The financial costs of emergency responses often exceed the costs of planned, coordinated solutions.

Housing security is therefore not only a human rights issue. It is also sound public administration

Bulgaria has an opportunity

Bulgaria has endorsed the EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion and Participation 2020–2030, which identifies equal access to adequate housing as one of its core objectives. The country is also implementing the European Child Guarantee, recognizing that children's well-being cannot be separated from secure housing conditions. These commitments provide an opportunity to move beyond recurring cycles of demolition and public outrage. Instead of asking whether demolitions should occur, policymakers should ask a different question: How can Bulgaria ensure that the enforcement of planning law never results in avoidable homelessness?

That requires coordination between central government, municipalities, housing policy, urban  planning and social protection. It also requires acknowledging that some problems cannot be solved solely through enforcement.

Beyond Stara Zagora

The events in Stara Zagora will eventually disappear from the headlines. Then another municipality will face a similar situation. A different neighbourhood will become the center of public debate. Another generation of children will experience the uncertainty of losing the place they call home. Until Bulgaria develops a coherent framework of safeguards, these crises will continue to repeat themselves. The issue is therefore not whether the state should enforce the law.

It should.

The question is whether the state can enforce the law while also protecting human dignity, preventing homelessness and upholding the constitutional values that define a democratic society.

A democracy is measured not only by its willingness to enforce the law, but also by how it treats people when doing so is hardest.

References