Status as at 12 October 2026: the text discussed below is a Bill filed with the National Assembly on 9 October 2026. It is not legislation currently in force. This article reviews the proposed changes and the preparations schools can make in advance.
Bill No. 52-654-01-161 proposes a material restructuring of the disciplinary regime under Bulgaria’s Pre-school and School Education Act. For school principals, in-house counsel and teaching teams, the practical issue is not only which tools may become available, but how each measure, record and parent communication can remain lawful and defensible.
Author: IVANOVA Legal Solutions
1. Legislative context
On 9 October 2026, a Bill amending the Pre-school and School Education Act was filed with the National Assembly by Krasimir Valchev and a group of Members of Parliament. The proposal seeks to address the administrative complexity and formality of the present procedure, which can deter school leadership from responding promptly to problematic behaviour.
The objective is to introduce flexible intermediate tools without removing safeguards for pupils or judicial review of substantive sanctions. The distinction between pedagogical prevention and administrative sanction is therefore central.
2. A two-tier model: warning measures and sanctions
The proposal would rename Section III of Chapter Nine to “Measures and Sanctions for Pupils” and create two distinct categories of disciplinary response.
| Warning measures | Substantive sanctions |
|---|---|
| Reprimand Warning of transfer to another class in the same school Warning of transfer to another school Warning of transfer from daytime or dual education to an independent form of education | Transfer to another class in the same school Transfer to another school Transfer from daytime or dual education to an independent form of education |
| Designed for less serious or initial misconduct and a preventive response. The Bill envisages a lighter procedure and swift recording, including in the electronic school register. | A final response to serious or repeated misconduct. Full administrative procedure, a reasoned order by the principal and a decision of the pedagogical council remain required. |
The practical value is that not every incident must begin with a full sanction procedure. Once the school moves to a sanction, however, it must be able to explain why a milder response was insufficient and how the pupil’s best interests were considered.
3. Temporary removal from lessons — up to three school days
One of the most significant proposed tools is temporary removal from lessons for up to three school days where the behaviour seriously disrupts the educational process or endangers safety.
- Physical presence: removal from lessons does not mean release from school. The pupil remains in the building and must not be left unsupervised.
- Educational and psychological work: the proposal envisages work with a psychologist, pedagogical counsellor or designated education professional aimed at addressing the behaviour and restoring participation.
- Immediate notice: the parent or legal representative should be informed promptly in a traceable manner.
Even a short measure requires a clear documentary trail: the incident, legal basis, duration, supervision, activities and notice to the parent.
4. Proposed effects on rights and participation
The Bill links conduct to material and representative consequences:
- where a substantive sanction is imposed — loss of an excellence scholarship during the sanction’s term;
- where three or more warning measures are imposed in one school year — restrictions on representing the school in competitions, olympiads, extracurricular forums and pupil self-government bodies;
- where a warning measure or sanction is imposed — activation or adjustment of personal development support activities.
These consequences make record-keeping even more important: an inaccurate electronic-register entry or unclear classification may have a disproportionate effect on a pupil and create legal risk for the school.
5. Litigation risk remains: recurring procedural defects
A lighter process does not remove judicial review. A principal’s acts which are individual administrative acts remain subject to the requirements of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Code. Case law consistently highlights several recurring risks.
Insufficient factual reasons
Generic phrases such as “damaging the school’s reputation” or “disrupting the educational process” are not enough. The decision should set out the specific act or omission, time, place, participants, consequences and evidence. Electronic-register extracts may form part of the file but cannot replace factual reasons in the act itself.
Inaccurate or incomplete legal basis
The decision should identify not only the principal’s competence but also the material legal basis for the particular measure or sanction. A court cannot cure a missing legal classification for the authority.
Support measures not evidenced
For a sanction, it remains critical whether meaningful activities to motivate and address the conduct were carried out. The file needs evidence: a support plan, reports from a psychologist or counsellor, meeting minutes and follow-up — not merely a formulaic statement in the order.
Hearing, representation and parental participation
The hearing should be conducted by the competent authority or duly authorised person in an appropriate setting, with the necessary participation of the parent/legal representative and specialist. A pupil’s appearance before the entire pedagogical council does not replace an individualised hearing.
Child-protection coordination and valid service
For serious sanctions, schools should assess timely notice to child-protection authorities and the involvement of a social worker where legally required. Service is equally important: using an informal electronic platform alone does not necessarily establish provable service or start a procedural deadline.
6. A practical plan for school leadership
- Update the school rules. Clearly distinguish minor, serious and repeated misconduct; avoid generic wording without an operational internal process.
- Create a model disciplinary file. It should include an incident record, class teacher’s report, materials on support provided, parent notice, hearing minutes and, where applicable, notice to Social Assistance Directorate.
- Assign roles and deadlines. Who collects facts, communicates with parents, maintains the electronic record and checks procedural completeness before a decision?
- Give individualised reasons. Explain why the response is proportionate, why a milder measure is insufficient and how the pupil’s age, individual circumstances and support needs were addressed.
- Train the team. A template is not enough if teachers, class heads and the pedagogical council do not know what must be documented in the first hours after an incident.
Conclusion
The proposed reform could give schools an earlier and more flexible response. It is not, however, a “free-form” regime: the greater the impact on the pupil, the more important are clear facts, support, a fair hearing and provable procedure.
IVANOVA Legal Solutions advises schools, training centres and academies on internal rules, disciplinary files, procedures under the Act, internal financial control systems, data protection, team training and representation in administrative proceedings.
Official source: Bill No. 52-654-01-161 in the National Assembly register. This material is for general information only and is not individual legal advice.