There have been several attempts to reform the juvenile justice system in Bulgaria during the last 20 years. The debates produced some legal amendments in 2004 but the overall structure and the ideology of the system remained untouched. Bulgaria regularly receives recommendations to change the system from the UN human rights treaty bodies and mechanisms and also from the Council of Europe. But these have not yet been transformed into the political will to take action.

This chapter aims to briefly present the latest attempt to reform the juvenile justice system in Bulgaria. The chapter outlines the Draft on Diversion of Underage Offenders from Criminal Proceedings and Implementation of Educational Measures Act (‘the Draft Act, 2016’), including the context, the driving forces behind it and the resistance against it.

THE CONTEXT IN BRIEF

The main ‘pillar’ of the Bulgarian juvenile justice system is the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) (in force from 1958, last amended in 2016). This Act was a positive step at the time of its adoption and for some time later, mainly due to its aim to handle juvenile offending within a separate system (based on divergence from the penal justice system enshrined as an option in the Penal Code (1968)). The system created under the JDA cannot be featured under any of the three models currently being conceptualised in the literature – the ‘welfare model’ (that considers the delinquent behaviour as strongly linked to unfavourable social, economic or family situations), the ‘justice model’ (the child in conflict with the law is responsible for his/her offence and should be punished, but can always receive treatment) and a ‘third path’ – restorative justice (it helps to bring the previous two closer to each other but also has its limits). It resembles the ‘welfare model’ with its declared aim to support the child's social reintegration but it lacks important elements such as interaction with child protection policies and practices. Most importantly, the law does not refer to the best interests of the child as requiring to be assessed and determined within the JDA procedures. The system differs from the ‘justice model’ mostly on a formal basis. It uses commissions, as an alternative to a court, which can impose so-called ‘educational measures’ and so act as quasi courts.