Key facts of the case - The Muslim Board of Trustees in the town of Zlatograd lodged a complaint with the Commission for Protection against Discrimination against the mayor of the Zlatograd municipality who did not assist them to obtain plans of the vakif real estates in Zlatograd. The complainant asks the Commission to inspect this case enclosing to their complaint a request sent to the mayor on 11.07.2006 asking him to issue a plan of a plot consisting of a central town’s mosque with a cemetery according to the plans established in 1939, 1959 and 1982, as well as three certificates for the planning scheme of the plot according to the plans in the above-mentioned years.
The regional mufti of Smolyan municipality has lodged a complaint against the mayor of Zlatograd municipality saying that the ‘mayor has treated unequally’ a group of people from the Muslim Board of Trustees who confesses Muslim religion as he refused to give them the documents referring to the vakif properties belonging to this Board of Trustees.
The Zlatograd municipality provided as evidence six documents consisting of three plans from 1939, 1959 and 1982 and three other documents referring to the above-mentioned property.
The Zlatograd municipality had informed the Board of Trustees in writing about the reasons for not having issued plans and certificates for the status of the plot, i.e. they had neither submitted documents certifying the possession of the estates and nor enclosed a document certifying that they had paid the tax for the service.
After a number of sessions conducted by the municipality in Zlatograd they informed the Muslim Board of Trustees that they had prepared the documents demanded by the applicant and they could have them after paying the corresponding taxes.

Main reasoning of the court - The Commission finally decided that discrimination under art. 4, § 2 from the Protection against Discrimination Act manifested towards the Muslim Board of Trustees in Zlatograd was not established and held accordingly the appeal unfounded.

1. The Commission does not establish discrimination under Article 4, § 2 of the Protection against Discrimination Act towards H.R.H.
2. The Commission leaves the appeal of H.R.H. as unfounded due to lack of discrimination under Article 4, § 2 of the Protection against Discrimination Act.

Comment - The Third Panel of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPD) deals with cases related to nationality, citizenship, origin, religion and faith. There is also the Five-member Panel for dealing with cases of multiple-discrimination.