Legal Metal Detecting in Bulgaria – First Steps
- Мустафа Бузгьов
- May 12
- 31 min read
CONCEPT AND PROPOSAL FOR THE NORMATIVE REGULATION OF HOBBY METAL DETECTING IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
Draft for Institutional Discussion
Proposal: | Legal publication of an analytical and conceptual nature, aimed at presenting guidelines and proposals for the creation of a clear, balanced and applicable regulatory framework for hobby metal detecting in the Republic of Bulgaria. The material examines the need to distinguish between lawful hobby activity and illegal treasure hunting, as well as the possibilities for introducing a regulated regime consistent with the public interest and the protection of cultural heritage. |
Initiative: | For the Lawful and Regulated Development of Hobby Metal Detecting in Bulgaria |
Author: | Mustafa Buzgyov |
Date: | 12 may 2026 г. |
Working note on the Version The document has been prepared as a conceptual basis for institutional dialogue. |
Content
1. I. Introduction
2. II. Analysis of the Existing Regime in Bulgaria
3. III. Comparative Legal Analysis: England, Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act
4. IV. Proposal for a Bulgarian Model
5. V. Proposals for Legislative Amendments
6. VI. Risks, Objections and Possible Criticism
7. VII. Request and Next Steps
8. Sources and References Used
I. Introduction
1. Subject Matter and Purpose of the Concept
This document proposes an expert concept for the creation of a clear, controlled and practically applicable normative regime for the practice of hobby metal detecting in the Republic of Bulgaria. The proposal does not aim to deregulate archaeological activities, does not legitimise the search for archaeological sites and does not call into question the State policy for the protection of cultural heritage. On the contrary: its main purpose is to create a predictable regime under which bona fide hobby activity is distinguished from illegal archaeological excavations, treasure hunting and trade in cultural property.
The concept may be submitted as a proposal to the Minister of Culture, with a copy to the Committee on Culture and Media at the National Assembly and to Members of Parliament who may recognise the need for a legislative initiative. Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the right of legislative initiative belongs to every Member of Parliament and to the Council of Ministers; citizens and legal entities may submit proposals to the competent authorities. The Constitution recognises the right to submit complaints, proposals and petitions to State authorities under Article 45, and the Law on Normative Acts expressly allows proposals for improvement of legislation by State authorities, legal entities and citizens [1], [2].
The proposal is oriented towards institutional dialogue. It does not oppose metal detecting hobbyists to the archaeological, museum and law enforcement communities, but proposes a mechanism for cooperation, accountability and control. Such an approach would be more useful than continuing the factual opposition between fully legitimate public interests: protection of cultural heritage, on the one hand, and legal certainty for bona fide citizens, on the other.
2. Public and Practical Context
Metal detecting as a technical hobby exists in Bulgaria irrespective of the absence of a separate normative regime. Under the existing legal framework, however, there is no expressly regulated space for hobby activity which is not aimed at searching for archaeological sites, is not carried out on archaeological sites or protected territories for the preservation of cultural heritage, and is performed with the consent of the owner or user of the relevant property.
This lack of normative distinction creates several practical deficits. First, bona fide hobbyists often cannot determine in advance what conduct is permissible and what conduct creates a risk of administrative-penal or criminal liability. Second, control authorities operate in an environment where every use of a device may appear suspicious, while proving an illegal archaeological purpose remains factually complex. Third, the State does not receive a sustainable channel for voluntary notification of accidentally discovered objects with possible cultural and historical significance.
The legal problem is not whether cultural heritage should be protected. This is a constitutional and international-law obligation. Article 23 of the Constitution obliges the State to take care of the preservation of the national historical and cultural heritage [1]. The problem is whether the existing regime creates a sufficiently clear, proportionate and workable legal environment which distinguishes bona fide hobby activity from the criminal search for archaeological sites.
3. Need for Balance
A balanced regime must simultaneously achieve four objectives:
· effective protection of archaeological sites, immovable cultural property and movable cultural property;
· creation of a clear procedure for bona fide hobby activity outside prohibited zones and without the purpose of archaeological research;
· facilitation of control authorities through registers, rules, identification of users and specific sanctions;
· encouragement of voluntary notification of finds through a secure and predictable channel for contact with museums and State authorities.
Pursuant to Article 54 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to benefit from national and universal cultural values, and freedom of scientific and technical creativity is recognised and guaranteed by law. These rights are not absolute and may not be exercised to the detriment of the rights and lawful interests of others or the public interest under Article 57, paragraph 2 of the Constitution [1]. Precisely for this reason, the approach should be regulatory, not permissive without control.
In view of European standards, the principle of proportionality should also be taken into account. The right to property, freedom of association, the right to cultural participation and legal certainty may be restricted where there is a legitimate aim, such as the protection of cultural heritage. However, restrictions must be clear, foreseeable and proportionate. This corresponds both to domestic law and to the general approach under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights [13], [14].
II. Analysis of the Existing Regime in Bulgaria
1. Cultural Heritage Act: Subject Matter and General Logic
The Cultural Heritage Act (CHA) regulates the protection of cultural heritage, including activities related to search, study, identification, documentation, registration, conservation, restoration and socialisation of cultural property. The Act places cultural heritage under a special regime of public interest and creates an institutional system in which the Ministry of Culture, museums, the National Institute for Immovable Cultural Heritage, municipalities, the authorities of the Ministry of Interior and other bodies have different functions [3].
For the purposes of this concept, the most relevant provisions are those concerning archaeological sites, field archaeological research, accidentally discovered objects and special technical means. Article 146 CHA defines archaeological sites as material traces of human activity, inseparable from the environment in which they were created, discovered or documented, and provides that they have the status of cultural property. Article 147 CHA regulates field archaeological research as an activity for the search and study of archaeological sites through destructive and non-destructive methods. The permit regime under Articles 148–152 CHA is intended for field archaeological research, and a permit is issued to persons with the required professional qualification under Article 150 CHA [3].
This logic is understandable and necessary with respect to archaeological activity. The problem is that the Act lacks an independent legal category of “hobby metal detecting” which would expressly regulate activity outside archaeological research and outside the search for archaeological sites. Therefore, the practical boundary between a permissible technical hobby and illegal searching for archaeological sites is often inferred indirectly — from the location, conduct, intent, objects found, manner of activity, means used and accompanying facts.
2. Special Technical Means and Registration Regime
Pursuant to § 4, item 2 of the Supplementary Provisions of the CHA, “special technical means” are geophysical equipment and other technical means used in field archaeological research for detecting immovable and movable archaeological cultural property on land and underwater. Article 152, paragraph 2 CHA provides for registration of special technical means with the Ministry of Culture, while Article 152, paragraph 3 CHA limits their use to field research or other specialised activity expressly provided for in a normative act [3].
The administrative service of the Ministry of Culture for registration of special technical means is formulated precisely as a service for means used in field archaeological research for detecting archaeological cultural property. This regime was not created as a general regime for all metal detectors, nor as a regime for hobby use [4].
Ordinance No. Н-00-0001 of 14.02.2011 on the Conduct of Field Archaeological Research regulates the conditions and procedure for conducting field archaeological research and for the registration and use of special technical means. The Ordinance treats field archaeological research as scientific research activity which may be carried out only after authorisation, and regulates a regime aimed at archaeological activities, not at general hobby use of metal detectors [5].
In other words, the existing regime contains strict rules for metal detectors when they are used as a means for archaeological research or for searching for archaeological sites. However, it does not contain a sufficiently clear positive regulation of the situation in which a person uses a metal detector as a hobby, outside an archaeological site, without searching for cultural property and with the consent of the owner of the land. This normative vacuum is not equivalent to uncontrolled freedom, but it creates uncertainty.
3. Accidentally Discovered Objects and Notification
The CHA contains a mechanism for accidentally discovered movable cultural property. Article 93 CHA provides an obligation for the finder to notify the nearest State, regional or municipal museum within 7 days. Articles 94 and 95 CHA regulate subsequent actions for preservation, expert assessment and the possibility of remuneration where the statutory conditions are present. Article 160 CHA refers to this regime in cases of accidentally discovered movable archaeological objects [3].
There is also Ordinance No. Н-2 of 12.01.2012, which regulates the conditions and procedure for determining the amount of remuneration for persons who have handed over objects under Article 93 CHA or have provided valuable information about such objects [6]. Nevertheless, in practice the mechanism does not build a comprehensive system for active cooperation with bona fide hobbyists, because there is no prior legal certainty regarding the hobby activity itself.
When a citizen is not sure whether their mere presence with a device may be interpreted as an offence or a crime, the incentive for voluntary notification decreases. This is a key practical problem. A clearer regime could strengthen, rather than weaken, the protection of cultural heritage, because it would create a channel for early notification, traceability and control.
4. Administrative-Penal Aspects under the CHA
The CHA contains a number of administrative-penal provisions related to damage or destruction of cultural property, carrying out activities without authorisation, use of special technical means, lack of registration under Article 152, paragraph 2 CHA and other violations. Particularly relevant are the provisions sanctioning unauthorised field archaeological research, violations concerning special technical means and damage to cultural heritage [3].
These sanctions are necessary with respect to genuinely unlawful activities. The issue is that the administrative-penal framework is not combined with a separate positive regime indicating when a person may lawfully exercise hobby activity. As a result, the sanctioning block is more developed than the regulatory block. This leads to a preventive effect on bona fide persons, but not necessarily to more effective control over organised treasure hunting.
5. Criminal-Law Aspects
The Criminal Code contains special offences related to archaeological sites and cultural property. Article 277a, paragraph 1 CC punishes anyone who, without the relevant authorisation, searches for archaeological sites. Paragraph 2 regulates unauthorised field archaeological excavations, geophysical or underwater research and illegal excavation works on the territory of immovable cultural property or within its protection zone. Paragraph 3 provides for more severe liability where technical means or motor vehicles are used. Article 277a, paragraph 7 CC criminalises the unlawful manufacture, possession or concealment of objects, materials, tools or computer programs which the perpetrator knows or assumes are intended or have been used for searching, storing, altering or transporting archaeological objects [7].
Article 278 CC regulates liability for failure to report discovered cultural property, as well as possession of archaeological objects which have not been identified and registered according to the relevant procedure. Article 278a CC punishes transactions and transportation of cultural property in violation of the law [7].
The criminal-law framework is aimed at protecting cultural heritage and should not be weakened with respect to treasure hunting, organised illegal excavations, concealment and trade in cultural property. At the same time, it raises an important question of legal certainty: if there is no legally defined regime for bona fide hobby use of a metal detector, the boundary between lawful and unlawful conduct depends too much on the specific facts and the subsequent assessment of the authorities.
6. Case Law: Available Guidelines and Limitations
Among publicly available materials, reference may be made to Decision No. 4188 of 22.03.2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court in administrative case No. 7375/2011, First Division, delivered on a complaint against a provision of Ordinance No. Н-00-0001. In the decision, the SAC accepts that the subject matter of the ordinance is the regime of field archaeological research and special technical means used in that context. The Court notes that no normative regulation of “other specialised activity” within the meaning of Article 152, paragraph 3 CHA has been established in the case, to which registration outside archaeological research could be linked. At the same time, the Court does not create a positive hobby regime, but establishes the limits of the existing regulation [8].
In criminal-law terms, the case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation under Article 277a CC should be taken into account. In the 2024 Bulletin of the SCC, a decision is reflected in which the Court emphasises that possession of metal detectors is not unlawful in itself where there is no evidence that they are intended or used for searching for archaeological sites. In the same material, the Court stresses that punishing a person who accidentally discovered an archaeological object and reported it in good faith would be unjust and would discourage notification [9].
The 2023 Bulletin of the SCC also reflects case law according to which Article 277a, paragraph 7 CC does not necessarily require actual use of the object where the objective and subjective elements are proven, namely that it is intended or has been used for searching for archaeological objects [10]. Therefore, the case law is highly dependent on the factual context: the technical device itself is not sufficient, but the specific purpose, location, conduct and evidentiary picture may lead to criminal liability.
When preparing an official proposal, it is advisable to conduct an additional check in professional legal information systems for the existence of interpretative case law, a consistent line of the SCC or SAC and possible contradictions. Within the framework of the present project, no interpretative decision has been identified which comprehensively and generally regulates the boundary between hobby metal detecting and illegal searching for archaeological sites.
7. Practical Deficits of the Existing Regime
The main practical deficits may be summarised as follows:
· there is no legal definition of “hobby metal detecting”;
· there is no separate regime for registration of persons and/or devices for hobby use outside an archaeological context;
· prohibited and permitted zones are not organised in a practical tool accessible to citizens;
· the obligation to notify in case of accidental discovery exists, but is not integrated into a system of trust and incentives;
· control authorities have difficulty distinguishing bona fide hobby activity from preparation or performance of illegal archaeological searching;
· the archaeological and museum system does not receive the full potential public contribution of bona fide citizens who would notify under a clear and secure regime.
Accordingly, the necessary change is not “liberalisation” in the sense of free searching. What is needed is regulation: clear rules, registration, prohibited zones, training, accountability, sanctions and institutional cooperation.
III. Comparative Legal Analysis: England, Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act
1. Limitations of the Comparative Approach
The English and Welsh model cannot be mechanically transferred to Bulgaria. The legal regime of ownership, the status of archaeological sites, the institutional structure of museums and the historical practice are different. In Bulgaria, archaeological sites are placed under a strongly protected public-law regime. Therefore, the comparative analysis should extract workable mechanisms, rather than copy foreign rules without adaptation.
Nevertheless, the model of England and Wales is useful because it does not automatically treat every hobbyist as an offender. It combines lawful practice of the hobby under compliance with rules, mandatory reporting of finds falling within the scope of the Treasure Act, voluntary recording of other archaeological finds through the Portable Antiquities Scheme, restrictions on protected sites and practical codes of responsible conduct [15], [16], [17].
2. Treasure Act and Mandatory Reporting
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Treasure Act 1996 regulates a special regime for finds falling within the category of “treasure”. Finds meeting the statutory criteria must be reported within a short period. The official GOV.UK guidance provides a 14-day period for reporting treasure finds to the local Finds Liaison Officer or competent authority, followed by a procedure for assessment, possible coroner’s inquest, valuation and possible reward [15], [16].
The Code of Practice under the Treasure Act, third revision, has been in force since 30 July 2023 and regulates the practical application of the regime, including the role of Finds Liaison Officers, museums, coroners and the reward mechanism [15]. From a Bulgarian perspective, the important element is not the specific English ownership regime over “treasure”, but the principle: the law creates a secure channel for reporting, a procedure and incentives for bona fide cooperation.
3. Portable Antiquities Scheme
The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is a voluntary system for recording archaeological finds discovered by citizens, including metal detectorists. PAS was created in response to the increase in metal detecting and the lack of a sufficient system for documenting such finds. It operates through a network of Finds Liaison Officers who receive information, assist in identification and recording of finds, and connect citizens with the museum and scientific community [17].
PAS does not repeal the obligations under the Treasure Act. It complements the statutory regime through voluntary reporting and building of trust. Its main policy is that more information about archaeological context is preserved when bona fide citizens have a working channel for contact, instead of being left in fear or legal uncertainty.
4. Permitted and Prohibited Land
In England and Wales, metal detecting generally requires the consent of the owner or user of the land. There are also strict restrictions for protected sites, including scheduled monuments. Historic England and Cadw expressly state that the use of a metal detector on a scheduled monument without the relevant consent or authorisation is prohibited and may constitute a criminal offence [18], [19].
Codes for responsible metal detecting emphasise written permission from the owner, avoidance of protected sites, reporting of finds and compliance with environmental and other special regimes. This approach can be adapted in Bulgaria through a clear list of prohibited zones, a requirement for written consent from the owner/user and training of registered users [20].
5. Realistically Applicable Elements for Bulgaria
The following elements can be adapted to the Bulgarian legal system:
· distinction between lawful hobby activity and illegal searching for archaeological sites;
· register of users and/or devices;
· mandatory consent of the owner or user of the land;
· absolute prohibition of activity on archaeological sites, immovable cultural property, archaeological reserves and protection zones;
· short deadlines and an easy channel for notification of finds with possible cultural value;
· museum or regional contact persons functionally similar to Finds Liaison Officers;
· reward and public recognition for bona fide notification within the framework of Bulgarian legislation;
· code of responsible metal detecting approved or coordinated with the Ministry of Culture.
The idea of free searching for archaeological objects should not be adapted. The Bulgarian model must expressly preserve the prohibition on unauthorised searching for archaeological sites and strengthen sanctions in cases of abuse of the hobby regime.
IV. Proposal for a Bulgarian Model
1. Basic Concept
It is proposed to introduce a regime of “registered hobby metal detecting”. This should be an activity which:
· is carried out only by a registered person and/or with a registered device;
· is carried out outside archaeological sites, immovable cultural property, archaeological reserves, protection zones and other prohibited territories;
· is not aimed at searching for archaeological sites or cultural property;
· is carried out with the consent of the owner or user of the property;
· is accompanied by an obligation to immediately cease activity and notify in case of a find with possible cultural value.
The most important principle is that the new regime does not create a right to search for archaeological sites. It creates a right to controlled hobby activity under strictly defined conditions. In case of violation of these conditions, the person should not benefit from any protection of the hobby regime.
2. Registration of Persons and Devices
There are two possible options: registration only of users or combined registration of users and devices. The combined model is more practical because it allows control over the person, the device and the declared use. Registration should not be a heavy licensing regime, but should include minimum prerequisites: adulthood, absence of relevant convictions for offences against cultural heritage, completion of brief training or a test, acceptance of a code of responsible conduct and declaration of the device.
The register may be administered by the Ministry of Culture or by an authorised structure under it, with the possibility of electronic application. Data concerning exact archaeological sites should not be publicly disclosed if this creates a risk of abuse. Only information concerning the validity of registration or the general rules may be public, without sensitive archaeological data.
3. Permitted and Prohibited Zones
The regime should prohibit hobby metal detecting in the following categories of territories:
· archaeological sites and territories with established archaeological status;
· archaeological reserves;
· immovable cultural property and their protection zones;
· territories for which a special regime for the protection of cultural heritage has been introduced;
· zones in which other special laws prohibit such activity — for example certain protected territories, military sites, infrastructure sites or private properties without consent.
Permitted zones should not be defined as an exhaustive list of “permitted sites”, but through a negative regime: the activity is permissible only outside the prohibited categories and where consent of the owner/user exists. For a practically enforceable regime, it is necessary for the Ministry of Culture to develop guidelines and, if technically possible, an electronic map or reference mechanism allowing registered persons to check in advance whether a given land plot falls within a prohibited category.
4. Notification, Registration and Handling of Finds
Effective normative regulation of hobby metal detecting should introduce a clear, predictable and proportionate regime for action upon discovery of objects. This regime should not treat every metal object found as an automatic object of violation or as grounds for repressive intervention. On the contrary, it must distinguish between different categories of finds, create incentives for bona fide conduct and provide a real opportunity for gathering information in favour of cultural heritage.
At present, the existing Article 93 CHA introduces a general obligation for a person who discovers an object which may have the quality of cultural property to report this within 7 days. At the same time, Article 95 CHA and Ordinance No. Н-2 of 12.01.2012 regulate the possibility of remuneration for persons who have handed over objects under Article 93 CHA or have provided valuable information about such objects. This regime should be preserved, but developed and practically adapted to a possible future regime of registered hobby metal detecting.
A main problem of the existing approach is the absence of a sufficiently clear distinction between different types of finds. In practice, the bona fide detectorist does not have an easy, predictable and risk-free mechanism through which to register ordinary finds without being treated as a person carrying out illegal archaeological activity. This leads to the opposite effect: it reduces the willingness to notify, limits the ability of museums to receive information and makes it more difficult for the State to distinguish between bona fide hobbyists and persons carrying out illegal excavations.
For this reason, the future regime should introduce a differentiated approach based on three categories of finds:
First category: finds of obvious high archaeological, historical or cultural significance
These are objects which, by their external features, may reasonably be perceived as cultural property or parts of an archaeological site — for example coins, jewellery, weapons, seals, elements of cultic, domestic or military material culture, hoards, objects made of precious metals, objects with inscriptions, images, symbols or other signs of antiquity and cultural-historical value.
Upon discovery of such an object, the registered detectorist should have a clear obligation:
to cease activity in the immediate area of discovery;
not to clean aggressively, restore, disassemble, chemically treat or alter the object;
to preserve information about the location, including GPS coordinates where possible;
to photograph the object and the place of discovery without carrying out further digging;
to notify the competent authority through an electronic form, telephone or another specified channel;
to preserve the object in the condition in which it was found until instructions are received.
For this category, a shorter initial period for notification than the general 7-day period under Article 93 CHA may be introduced — for example 48 hours for electronic notification where the person is a registered hobbyist. This should not repeal the existing general regime under the CHA, but should supplement it through a faster and easier contact channel. A shorter period is justified only if the State provides a genuinely functioning system: electronic form, regional contact persons, clear instructions and a traceable incoming reference number.
Second category: common single ancient or old finds without obvious high value
A separate, more favourable and practically applicable regime should be introduced here. Not every single coin, fragment, button, bullet, lead seal, metal household object or other common find should automatically lead to a heavy procedure of handover, expertise and sanctioning risk. If the regime is built in this way, it will not create trust, but will reproduce the existing grey zone.
For this category, a register of ordinary finds should be created, by analogy with the philosophy of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. PAS does not function merely as a repressive mechanism, but as a system for voluntary recording and scientific documentation of finds through Finds Liaison Officers. It is precisely this intermediary model that creates trust between detectorists, museums and the State.
In the Bulgarian model, it may be provided that for ordinary single finds, the registered detectorist has an obligation or at least a normatively encouraged possibility to carry out electronic registration, including:
a photograph of the object;
approximate dimensions and material, where known;
date of discovery;
general location or coordinates, while providing protection against public disclosure of the exact location;
data of the registered detectorist;
a declaration that the find was not discovered in a prohibited zone, archaeological site, reserve or land subject to a special regime;
a declaration that consent of the owner or user of the property exists, where applicable.
After such registration is submitted, the competent museum or designated contact person should be able to assess within a reasonable period — for example 30 days — whether the object should be presented for inspection, expertise or handover under the general procedure. If no inspection or additional action is requested within this period, the object may remain with the finder until a subsequent express request, unless it falls within a category for which the law provides mandatory handover.
This achieves balance: the State receives information, museums receive data on the distribution of finds, and the bona fide detectorist is not placed in a position of fear that every notification will automatically lead to sanction or confiscation.
Third category: modern objects and objects without signs of cultural property
For modern objects, waste, technical elements, modern coins, cartridges outside the scope of cultural heritage, agricultural metal parts and other clearly non-historical objects, no obligation to notify under the CHA should be created. In these cases, the general rules of civil law, the rules on found objects, the requirements of the property owner and possibly special regimes should apply if the object is ammunition, hazardous material or an object connected with a crime.
This distinction is necessary because without it the regime would be disproportionate and practically inapplicable. The law must direct control towards genuinely significant cases, rather than create an administrative burden for every metal object found.
Criteria for Mandatory Notification
In order to avoid subjectivity, the law or a subordinate normative act should contain an indicative but non-exhaustive list of finds in respect of which notification is mandatory. It may include:
group finds;
objects made of precious metals;
coins, jewellery, weapons, tools or other objects of obvious antiquity;
objects with inscriptions, images, coats of arms, religious or ruler symbols;
objects found in concentration suggesting an archaeological context;
human remains or objects connected with a burial context;
objects whose condition or location indicates that they may be part of an archaeological site.
Upon discovery of a group find or evidence of an archaeological layer, a stricter regime should be introduced: immediate cessation of activity, non-disturbance of the terrain and notification within a short period. This is logical because in such cases the greatest value is often not only the object, but the archaeological context.
Incentives and Protection of the Bona Fide Detectorist
The future regime must expressly provide that bona fide notification or registration of a find by a registered hobbyist should not in itself be treated as an indication of illegal archaeological activity. Sanctioning consequences should arise only where there are additional facts: searching in a prohibited zone, lack of consent for access to the property, use of illegal excavations, concealment of finds, trade in cultural property or destruction of archaeological context.
This element is key. If the citizen does not have minimum legal certainty that notification will not automatically place them in an unfavourable position, the regime will not work. Therefore, a principle of bona fide cooperation should be introduced, under which a registered detectorist who has fulfilled the obligations for notification benefits from a more favourable regime in the administrative assessment, unless there is evidence of a violation.
The incentives should include:
real application and publicisation of the remuneration under Article 95 CHA and Ordinance No. Н-2;
public recognition of the finder, where compatible with the protection of the location;
possibility for the finder’s name to be recorded in museum documentation;
prompt feedback from the museum or competent person;
access to training and certification;
possibility for the finder to retain objects which, after assessment, do not constitute cultural property or are not subject to acquisition by the State;
possibility for ordinary finds to be entered in an electronic register without automatic physical handover.
The logic of the English model may be used here, but without mechanical copying. In England and Wales, mandatory reporting is concentrated on finds falling within the statutory definition of treasure, while the wider circle of archaeological objects is documented through PAS. The Treasure Act 1996 and the current Code of Practice regulate a special procedure, including reporting, assessment, possible acquisition by a museum and reward. The Bulgarian model may adopt this philosophy: strict regime for significant finds, simplified registration regime for common finds and absence of unnecessary administrative burden for clearly modern objects.
Proposal for Normative Formula
The CHA or a subordinate normative act may provide the following conceptual regulation:
“Where registered hobby metal detecting is carried out, the person shall be obliged to notify the competent authority upon discovery of an object or group of objects which, by their external features, may constitute cultural property, an archaeological object or part of an archaeological context.
For single and common finds without obvious high cultural, scientific or historical value, electronic registration may be carried out according to a procedure determined by ordinance of the Minister of Culture. The registration shall include description, photographic material, data on the place of discovery and a declaration of compliance with the conditions for carrying out the activity.
The competent museum or designated official may, within a period determined by ordinance, require presentation of the object for inspection, identification or expert assessment. Where no such request is made within the prescribed period and the object does not fall within a category subject to mandatory handover, the object shall remain with the finder, without this releasing the person from their obligations in the event of subsequent establishment of cultural-historical significance.
Bona fide notification or registration by a person carrying out the activity under the conditions of the law may not in itself be accepted as evidence of illegal archaeological activity.”
Practical Effect
Such a model is more favourable for the bona fide detectorist because:
it does not equate every find with a violation;
it allows registration without automatic confiscation;
it provides predictability as to when notification is mandatory;
it introduces a possibility for retaining ordinary finds after registration or after lack of interest by the competent authority;
it reduces fear of contact with institutions;
it creates a real incentive for cooperation.
At the same time, the model is defensible before the State because:
it preserves a strict regime for significant finds;
it protects archaeological context;
it provides data for museums;
it facilitates control authorities through traceability;
it distinguishes bona fide registered detectorists from persons acting in prohibited zones, concealing finds or carrying out illegal excavations.
5. Control and Sanctions
Control should be simple and verifiable. During an inspection, the registered user should be able to present an electronic certificate of registration, data on the device, written or electronic consent of the owner/user of the land and information that the land does not fall within a prohibited category according to the available public data. The authorities should be able to verify the registration in an electronic register.
Sanctions must be differentiated. Formal violations, such as failure to present a document during a first inspection, should be sanctioned more lightly. Activity in a prohibited zone, concealment of a find, repetition, use of the device for searching for archaeological sites or trade in cultural property should lead to severe administrative sanctions, deregistration, confiscation of the device where lawful and proportionate, and referral to the prosecution service where there is evidence of a crime.
6. Cooperation with Museums and State Authorities
The model must include regional contact points — for example designated employees in regional museums who receive notifications, provide initial instructions and forward information to the competent authorities. It is not necessary to create a heavy new administration. At the initial stage, a pilot mechanism may be built through the Ministry of Culture, regional museums and voluntary participation of the federation.
The federation or associations of hobbyists may undertake commitments for training, a code of conduct, internal discipline and assistance in campaigns for the protection of cultural heritage. This would turn the organised community into a partner of the State, rather than an object of general suspicion.
7. How the Model Limits Abuse
The proposed model limits abuse through five mechanisms:
it removes bona fide activity from the grey zone and makes it traceable;
it creates registration which facilitates inspections and sanctions in case of violations;
it distinguishes the lawful hobby from the search for archaeological sites;
it creates short and clear obligations for notification;
it increases public intolerance towards treasure hunting because the hobby community itself will have an interest in distancing itself from illegal activity.
In this way, the State may concentrate resources on genuinely risky conduct: illegal excavations, activity on archaeological sites, concealment and sale of cultural property, organised treasure hunting and international illegal trafficking.
V. Proposals for Legislative Amendments
1. Approach to the Amendments
The proposals below are illustrative and conceptual in nature. They should be refined by a working group with participation of the Ministry of Culture, archaeologists, museums, the Ministry of Interior, the prosecution service, representatives of the federation and experts in administrative and criminal law. The purpose is to show a possible legal architecture, without claiming that the texts constitute a final draft bill.
The most appropriate law for the main amendment is the CHA, since the matter is related to cultural heritage, archaeological sites and special technical means. The Criminal Code should not be liberalised with respect to treasure hunting; any possible amendment there could only be clarifying and after careful assessment.
2. Proposal for New Definitions
Definitions with the following indicative content may be created in the Supplementary Provisions of the CHA:
Example Text “Hobby metal detecting” means an activity involving the use of a metal detector by a registered person for hobby, sport or educational purposes, which does not constitute field archaeological research, is not aimed at searching for archaeological sites or cultural property and is carried out under the conditions and restrictions of this Act. “Metal detector for hobby metal detecting” means a technical device registered under the procedure of this Act for hobby use outside field archaeological research. The device shall not be considered a special technical means within the meaning of § 4, item 2, insofar as it is used solely under the conditions of the regime for hobby metal detecting. |
The purpose is to distinguish hobby use from field archaeological research. The legal logic is to avoid the automatic equating of every use of a metal detector with archaeological activity, without weakening the prohibition on searching for archaeological sites. The practical effect will be greater legal certainty and easier verification. The risk is that the definition may be used as a cover; therefore, it must be combined with prohibited zones, sanctions and notification obligations.
3. New Section in the CHA
A new section may be created in Chapter Seven or in another systematically appropriate part of the CHA, for example “Hobby Metal Detecting”. Indicative structure:
Example Text Article 152a. (1) Hobby metal detecting shall be carried out only by a person entered in a register at the Ministry of Culture, under the conditions of this Act. (2) Registration shall be carried out on the basis of an application, data concerning the person, data concerning the device, a declaration of compliance with the law and a certificate of completed training or test. (3) A person convicted of an offence under Articles 277a–278a of the Criminal Code shall not be registered, unless rehabilitated. (4) The Minister of Culture shall determine by ordinance the procedure for registration, training, maintenance of the register and control. |
Example Text Article 152b. (1) Hobby metal detecting shall be permitted only outside archaeological sites, immovable cultural property, archaeological reserves, protection zones and other territories for which a law or administrative act provides for a prohibition. (2) The activity shall be carried out only with the consent of the owner or user of the property. (3) During the activity, excavation works which may damage archaeological layers, structures or finds shall be prohibited. Only minimal surface actions shall be permitted under a procedure determined in the ordinance. |
Example Text Article 152c. (1) Upon discovery of an object which, by its external features, may constitute cultural property or an archaeological object, the person shall be obliged to immediately cease the activity and notify the nearest museum or another designated competent authority. (2) The initial notification shall be made within 24 hours through an electronic form, telephone or another designated channel, and the subsequent actions shall be carried out under the procedure of Articles 93–95 and Article 160, insofar as applicable. (3) The person shall be obliged to preserve information about the place of discovery and not to alter the condition of the object, unless this is necessary to prevent immediate harm. |
Example Text Article 152d. (1) The Ministry of Culture, jointly with the regional museums, shall organise contact points for receiving notifications and for initial communication with registered persons. (2) The Ministry may approve a code of responsible hobby metal detecting after public consultation. (3) Organisations of registered users may assist in training, prevention and voluntary notification. |
The expected benefits are legal foreseeability, increased control and better traceability. A possible weakness is administrative burden for the Ministry of Culture and museums. This may be minimised through electronic applications, limited data volume, a pilot stage and participation of associations in training.
4. Subordinate Legislative Amendments
After a legislative amendment, Ordinance No. Н-00-0001 should be amended or a separate ordinance on hobby metal detecting should be adopted. A separate ordinance is the better option, because Ordinance No. Н-00-0001 is systematically directed at field archaeological research. Mixing the scientific archaeological regime with the hobby regime may create additional uncertainty.
The new ordinance should regulate:
· the form and content of applications;
· the minimum training or test;
· the form of the electronic certificate;
· the procedure for verification of registration;
· the minimum data concerning the device;
· the procedure for notification in case of finds;
· coordination with regional museums;
· the technical rules for consent of the owner/user;
· public guidelines on prohibited zones, without disclosure of sensitive archaeological data.
5. Sanctioning Provisions
Differentiated administrative sanctions may be created in the CHA. Example:
Example Text Article 219a. (1) A person who carries out hobby metal detecting without registration shall be punished by a fine from EUR 300 to EUR 1,000, unless the act constitutes a crime. (2) In case of repeated violation, the fine shall be from EUR 1,000 to EUR 3,000, and cancellation of registration or refusal of registration for a specified period may also be imposed. Article 219b. (1) A person who carries out hobby metal detecting in a prohibited zone, without the consent of the owner/user or in breach of the notification obligations, shall be punished by a fine from EUR 1,000 to EUR 5,000, unless the act constitutes a crime. (2) In case of concealment of a find, repeated violation or creation of risk for an archaeological site, the competent authority shall refer the matter to the prosecution service where there is evidence of a crime. |
The purpose of the sanctions is not to criminalise the hobby, but to make the hobby regime reliable. If the rules are clear, their violation may be sanctioned more effectively. The risk of excessiveness should be avoided through differentiation, proportionality and distinction between formal, repeated and serious violations.
6. Possible Clarification in the Criminal Code
It is not mandatory to amend the Criminal Code if the CHA clearly regulates lawful hobby use. However, it is possible to discuss a clarifying provision in the CHA, and not necessarily in the Criminal Code, according to which registration for hobby metal detecting does not exempt from criminal liability in case of searching for archaeological sites, but lawful possession and use of a device under the new regime shall not in itself be considered unlawful.
Such a solution is safer than an amendment to the criminal law, because it does not weaken criminal-law protection. It merely creates a positive administrative-law regime which the court and authorities may take into account when assessing the factual circumstances.
VI. Risks, Objections and Possible Criticism
1. Risk to Cultural Heritage
The most serious objection is that legalising any form of metal detecting may increase the risk of damage to archaeological sites. This objection is justified if a free regime without control is proposed. The present concept, however, proposes the opposite: registration, training, prohibited zones, notification and sanctions. The risk is reduced through clear boundaries and better traceability.
2. Concerns of the Archaeological Community
The archaeological community rightly protects the context of finds. Removing an object without documenting its context may destroy scientific information. Therefore, the regime must include an obligation for immediate cessation upon discovery, recording of the location, notification and participation of a museum/archaeologist in subsequent actions. Registered hobbyists must be trained that the value of cultural property lies not only in the object itself, but also in the archaeological context.
3. Risk of Concealing Treasure Hunting
It is possible that persons with unlawful intentions may try to use the hobby regime as a cover. This is a real risk. The solution is not the absence of a regime, but a regime with the possibility of rapid deregistration, on-site control, sanctions for prohibited zones, exchange of information with the Ministry of Interior and a clear rule that registration is not a defence where there is evidence of searching for archaeological sites.
4. Administrative Capacity
The Ministry of Culture and the regional museums may object that they do not have capacity for new functions. This objection should be addressed through a pilot stage, an electronic register, standardised forms, limited scope of inspections and participation of associations in training and self-regulation. It is not necessary to create a large new administration.
5. Insufficient Map of Prohibited Zones
A practical problem is access to information concerning archaeological sites and protection zones. Full public disclosure of sensitive archaeological data may be dangerous. A possible solution is to create a reference mechanism which gives a result “permitted/prohibited/additional check required”, without publishing detailed coordinates of vulnerable sites.
6. Public Perception
In Bulgaria, metal detecting is often perceived through the prism of treasure hunting. Therefore, communication must be careful. The federation must expressly state that it supports criminal prosecution of illegal excavations, concealment and trade in cultural property. The request must be for legality, control and cooperation, not for free access to cultural heritage.
VII. Request and Next Steps
1. Institutional Request
It is proposed that the following institutional request be addressed to the Minister of Culture:
Draft Dear Minister, We propose that the Ministry of Culture examine the present concept and initiate an expert meeting or working group with the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Culture, regional museums, the archaeological community, the Ministry of Interior, the prosecution service, the competent parliamentary committee and representatives of the organised community of hobby metal detectorists. The aim is to discuss the possibility of creating a clear, controlled and proportionate normative regime for hobby metal detecting, which does not allow searching for archaeological sites, but creates legal certainty for bona fide citizens and more effective control against illegal treasure hunting activity. |
A copy may be sent to the Committee on Culture and Media at the National Assembly with a request for the topic to be examined, for a round table to be held or for an expert discussion to be organised. Members of Parliament may be invited to support the formation of a legislative initiative after a coordinated draft has been prepared.
2. Proposed Steps
1. Finalisation of the present concept after internal discussion within the federation/association.
2. Legal verification of all normative references through the State Gazette and a professional legal information system.
3. Official submission to the Ministry of Culture.
4. Sending a copy to the Committee on Culture and Media and to Members of Parliament.
5. Request for an expert meeting and working group.
6. Preparation of a specific draft bill and motives, if the institutions accept the need for normative change.
7. Pilot application or test model, if preferred by the institutions.
3. Conclusion
Bulgarian legislation has a legitimate and necessary objective to protect cultural heritage. At the same time, the lack of a separate regime for bona fide hobby metal detecting creates legal uncertainty, complicates control and does not sufficiently encourage voluntary notification of finds. A better approach is not a silent prohibition through uncertainty, but clear regulation through registration, prohibited zones, training, control and sanctions.
The proposed model is not opposed to the State, museums or the archaeological community. It seeks partnership. Bona fide hobbyists can be a source of information and assistance if the law recognises them as potential partners, and not only as a risk category. At the same time, persons who use metal detectors for illegal searching for archaeological sites should continue to bear strict administrative and criminal liability.
For this reason, the present concept proposes an institutional discussion on a balanced regime which simultaneously protects cultural heritage, increases legal certainty, facilitates control authorities and reduces the grey sector.
Sources and References Used
Note: The cited sources were publicly available as of the date of preparation.
[1] Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria — Ministry of Justice, Information System for Normative Acts. https://www.justice.government.bg/home/normdoc/521957377
[2] Law on Normative Acts — Ministry of Justice, Information System for Normative Acts. https://justice.government.bg/home/normdoc/2127837184
[3] Cultural Heritage Act — Publicly accessible consolidated version; for official submission, verification through the State Gazette/professional legal information system is recommended. https://legislation.apis.bg/doc/334811/0
[4] Administrative Service No. 329: Registration of Special Technical Means for Field Research — Integrated Information System of the State Administration / Ministry of Culture. https://iisda.government.bg/adm_services/services/service/329
[5] Ordinance No. Н-00-0001 of 14.02.2011 on the Conduct of Field Archaeological Research — State Gazette, initial text and amendments; including SG issue No. 7 of 23.01.2024. https://dv.parliament.bg/DVWeb/showMaterialDV.jsp?idMat=45279 ; https://dv.parliament.bg/DVWeb/showMaterialDV.jsp?idMat=203640
[6] Ordinance No. Н-2 of 12.01.2012 on the Remuneration of Persons Who Have Handed Over Objects under Article 93 of the CHA or Have Provided Valuable Information — State Gazette / Ministry of Culture. https://dv.parliament.bg/DVWeb/showMaterialDV.jsp?idMat=60470 ; https://mc.government.bg/files/1248_NAREDBA_N2_ot_12012012.rtf
[7] Criminal Code — Ministry of Justice, Information System for Normative Acts. https://justice.government.bg/home/normdoc/1589654529
[8] Decision No. 4188 of 22.03.2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court in administrative case No. 7375/2011 — Publicly accessible copy on the website of the Bulgarian National Federation for Metal Detecting; for official citation, verification through the court registry/professional legal information system is recommended. https://www.metaldetecting.bg/images/files/7_reshenie_vas_md.PDF
[9] Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Cassation, 2024 — Case law under Article 277a of the Criminal Code, reflected in the bulletin. https://www.vks.bg/byuletin/2024-09.pdf
[10] Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Cassation, 2023 — Case law under Article 277a of the Criminal Code, reflected in the bulletin. https://www.vks.bg/byuletin/2023-12.pdf
[11] European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), Valletta, 1992 — Council of Europe, Valletta Convention. https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/valletta-convention
[12] Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 167 — EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_167/oj/eng
[13] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT
[14] European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No. 1 — European Court of Human Rights / Council of Europe. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
[15] Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice, 3rd Revision — GOV.UK / Department for Culture, Media and Sport. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-act-1996-code-of-practice-3rd-revision
[16] Report treasure — GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/treasure
[17] Portable Antiquities Scheme: About / History — Portable Antiquities Scheme. https://finds.org.uk/ ; https://training.finds.org.uk/about
[18] Section 42 consent and scheduled monuments — Historic England. https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/section42-consent/
[19] Metal detecting on scheduled monuments in Wales — Cadw. https://cadw.gov.wales/advice-support/historic-assets/scheduled-monuments/metal-detecting
[20] Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting — Collections Trust / Portable Antiquities Scheme material. https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/code-of-practice-for-responsible-metal-detecting/
[21] Directive 2014/60/EU on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State — EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32014L0060
[22] Regulation (EU) 2019/880 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods — EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/880/oj
Comments