ABSTRACT
A lustration law has been a quite common feature in the post-communist legislative reforms of countries from the former Soviet bloc. The Hungarian Constitutional Court, in its judgment on the Hungarian lustration law, acknowledged that the particular characteristics of a period of transition held special significance for the assessment of laws enacted. As the Czechoslovak Constitutional Court pointed out in its lustration case, evidence on specific instances is lacking precisely because the agents of the totalitarian government disposed of or hid the records prior to handing over power. The critics make what seem to be incompatible charges against the various types of lustration laws. Some laws, like the Czechoslovak, are criticised for being too “sweeping”, and others, like the Bulgarian, for unfairly singling out people for harsh treatment. The Bulgarian law affected only very limited protected positions, for example in teaching and banking.
