Lawyer Denitsa Lyubenova to FAKTI: Same-sex intimate relationships need to be included in the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence

What is “legal invisibility“? How does it affect people seeking protection from domestic violence? Why don't the law or institutions recognize a given life situation in a way that provides the necessary protection. What is the problem with same-sex couples… What gaps are there in the legislation, protection from domestic violence, recognition of same-sex families and the upcoming transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 (b.r. - The deadline for transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence into the national legislation of the Member States, including Bulgaria, is June 14, 2027), as well as on the big topic of the so-called outing - the disclosure of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity without their consent. Lawyer Denitsa Lyubenova, human rights defender and chairwoman of the LGBTI organization “Action“, spoke to FACTI.

- Ms. Lyubenova, what does “legal invisibility“ look like in practice?
- Legal invisibility occurs when a woman seeks protection and finds that the law does not recognize her relationship in the same way as it would recognize a woman's relationship with a male partner. The clearest example is the definition of “intimate relationship“ in the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence, which explicitly refers to relationships between a male and a female. Thus, a woman who has experienced violence from her partner may remain outside the special protection of the law precisely because of the gender of the perpetrator. She may not receive access to the same emergency measures, protection orders, and specialized services that would be available in a similar heterosexual relationship. Invisibility continues when institutions do not recognize outing, the threat of revealing sexual orientation, the disclosure of medical information or the abuse of official dependency as tools of violence and control. The woman is present before the institution, but her actual experience remains outside the legal categories with which the system works.

- What do surveys show about trust in institutions?
- The survey is not representative of the entire LGBTQ+ community, but it shows clear and recurring patterns. Out of 28 respondents, 22 assessed the preparedness of the police and the Ministry of Interior to respond adequately to domestic violence against LGBTQ+ people as very low. Seventeen defined the institutions as practically difficult to access, and the fear of outing was mentioned by 15 people as an obstacle to seeking help. The interviews also show how this distrust works in practice. In one of the cases, a report was not filed at all, because the institutional environment and the official influence of the perpetrator are part of the risk. In another case, the police show a humane attitude, but do not take sufficient protective measures, do not involve a social worker or psychologist and do not adequately take into account the child's situation. In a third case, a conviction is reached, but the violence is not recognized as having been committed in the context of domestic violence.
Therefore, the question is not only whether there is an institution to which a person can formally turn. The question is whether filing a report will lead to protection, or to new harm - disclosure, stigmatization, neglect or repeated victimization.

- What problem does the lack of legal recognition of the same-sex family create?
- The legal deficit appears even when determining whether a protected family or intimate relationship exists at all. Bulgarian law does not recognize same-sex partnerships, and the definition of "intimate relationship" in the LDPA additionally requires that the relationship be between a man and a woman. This means that a same-sex couple may remain outside all categories through which the law provides special protection. This has very specific consequences. The victim may encounter difficulties in requesting a protection order, removing the perpetrator from the common home, prohibiting contact and referring to specialized services. When there is a child in the family, the unrecognized parent may also find himself without the necessary legal instruments to protect both himself and the child.
Thus, the state first refuses to recognize the family relationship, and then uses the lack of a recognized relationship as a reason not to provide the full scope of protection. This is the essence of the structural problem.

- What are the most significant changes in the transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/1385?
- First, the definition of “intimate relationship“ in the LDPA should be expanded, removing the requirement that it be between a man and a woman. Protection should depend on the nature of the relationship and the risk of violence, not on the gender of the partners.
Second, a mandatory individual assessment of needs and risk should be introduced, leading to specific protective measures. For LGBTQ+ people, this assessment should take into account the risk of outing, persecution, disclosure of medical information, occupational and economic dependence, the presence of children and the risk of secondary victimization.
Third, clear protocols, trained staff and working referral routes to legal, psychological, social and medical assistance are needed. Confidential reporting channels, a dedicated contact point and access to coordinated "one-stop-shop" services are also needed.
Fourth, institutions need to collect reliable data on cases, including on combined discrimination, with strict confidentiality guarantees. Without data, the problem remains invisible and adequate policies cannot be planned.
True transposition does not mean just replacing a few texts in the law. It requires a comprehensive system that recognizes the risk early, reacts immediately and provides coordinated protection.

- Is there a risk that the general rules will again exclude LGB+ women?
- Yes, this is one of the main risks. It is possible for the legislator to adopt general and formally neutral rules, but to retain definitions, procedures and services built solely around the heterosexual model of family and partnership.
If the law does not explicitly name the compound discrimination and the specific risks for lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer women, institutions are likely to continue to apply the general rules in a way that does not recognize their experiences. The same applies if the forms do not allow for the reflection of a same-sex relationship, if crisis services are not prepared to accept trans women or if employees are not trained to work without prejudice and without the risk of outing. Therefore, specific needs must be included in the legislation, individual assessment, methodological guidelines, training, data collection systems and standards for service provision. Otherwise, we will have a formally transposed directive, but unchanged access to protection.

- How has practice changed in the last 12 years?
- The change is significant. When we started working on the legal program in 2014, many LGBTI people perceived discrimination and institutional rejection as something that there was no point in fighting against legally. There was a lack of sufficient information about possible remedies, there was almost no positive case law, and trust in institutions was extremely low. Today, more people are willing to seek their rights through judicial and administrative channels. They see that an individual case can change practice not only for the individual, but also for the entire community. The cases on the recognition of same-sex families, parenthood, and legal gender have shown that when the national system refuses protection, there are also European mechanisms. We now have decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, which are the result of the courage of individuals to stand up with their names and lives before institutions. But the fear of publicity has not disappeared. Many people continue to worry about coming out to their family, employer, or community, about losing their jobs or housing, about pressure, and secondary victimization. Court proceedings are long, expensive and emotionally draining. Especially in the case of domestic violence, one must consider not only whether one will be heard, but also whether reporting the incident will increase the risk.
Therefore, an increase in the number of cases does not necessarily mean that the system has become accessible. It shows that the community has become more organized and courageous, and that there are organizations that provide legal support. However, the onus should not rest on the victim to be brave enough to overcome an unprepared or discriminatory system.

- What needs to change in the next two years to have real protection?
- The first action needed is for same-sex intimate relationships to be explicitly included in the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. A woman’s access to a protection order and specialized support cannot depend on the gender of her partner.
Secondly, a mandatory individual risk and needs assessment should be introduced, which should not remain a form in the file, but should lead to specific measures, deadlines and responsible institutions. It should take into account outing, post-separation stalking, disclosure of medical information, economic and occupational dependence, the presence of children and the risk of secondary victimization.
Thirdly, the Ministry of Interior, the prosecutor's office, social and health services should work according to uniform protocols and clear referral routes. Trained staff, confidential reporting channels, access to "one-stop" services and crisis, psychological and legal services that can actually support LGBTIQ+ women are needed.
Fourthly, these measures should be backed by a budget, reliable data collection, implementation control and participation of civil society organizations and people with direct experience. Without funding, accountability and measurable results, even good legal texts will remain just a promise.
After two years, success should not be measured solely by whether the Directive has been formally transposed. We must be able to show that a woman receives timely protection regardless of her sexual orientation or gender identity; that institutions recognise the risk; that she is not forced to repeatedly recount her experiences; and that she remains more protected, not more vulnerable, after reporting.