RULING No. 306 Sofia, 03.07.2019 Rectangular sea of the Supreme Court of Cassation, True copy, Secretary (Signature) The Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria, Third Civil Division, in a closed session on the second of July two thousand and nineteenth, in the presence of the following judges: CHAIRMAN: SVETLA DIMITROVA MEMBERS: MIMI FURNADZHIEVA DANIELA STOYANOVA After hearing the report of Judge Stoyanova on private civil case No. 2096 on the docket of the Third Civil Division of the Court for 2019, in order to rule, took into account the following: The proceedings are held in accordance with Art. 278, in conjunction with Art. 274, para. 3 CPC. They were instituted based on a private appeal of Blagoy Petrov Aleksiev, with address in Sofia, against ruling No. 1324 of 15.04.2019, pronounced on private civil case No 1121/2019 on the docket of the Court of Appeal Sofia, which denied Aleksiev’s private appeal and confirmed ruling №1774 dated 22.01.2019, issued by the Sofia City Court on civil case No 14526/2018 on the docket of the Sofia City Court, which ordered the return of the claim lodged by him against the Prosecutor"s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria and discontinued the proceedings on it. The appeal seeks the annulment of the ruling and the examination of the merits of the case. It is alleged that the contested act is incorrect and unlawful, in violation of the substantive and procedural law. Detailed arguments are provided that the applicant, Blagoy Petrov Aleksiev or Brian Alexis, as a citizen of Bulgaria and the United States, is a "victim of nuclear terrorism committed on the US Territory by a confirmed KGB agent, a mass murderer of US citizens Anna Kilimnik", that the respondent - the Prosecutor"s Office of Bulgaria and its structures, under the instructions of the Prosecutor General, are inactive and systematically deprive him of the right to justice and the judicial panels comply with the instructions of the Prosecutor General and obstruct the proceedings on his petition for compensation for the damages suffered. In an extensive statement, the complainant explains in detail his views on the actions of the respondent, the government officials in Bulgaria and the magistrates, his right to indemnity under Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the lack of functional immunity of the magistrates under Article 132 of the Constitution. In the application attached to the appeal, he maintains the presence of the grounds under Art. 280, para. 2, para 3 of the Civil Procedure Code - obvious irregularity, as well as Art. 280, para. 1, p. 3 CPC - significance for the correct application of the law and for the development of the law on the matter: "Is a claim based on Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria admissible, in order to seek the responsibility of the state for damages caused by the unlawful acts or actions of the investigative bodies and the Prosecutor"s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria?" In order to justify the existence of a ground for access to cassation, it is stated that the contested decision wrongly stated that the claim was inadmissible because the plaintiff"s rights are limited by hypotheses of Article 49 of the OCA and Art. 1, 2, 2a and 26 of the SRFA, where the plaintiff is deprived of a fundamental constitutional right regulated by Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. The proceedings were initiated based on the claim of Blagoy Petrov Aleksiev against the Prosecutor"s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria, which brought actions for annulment of all administrative acts, issued between 25.06.2008 and 12.06.2017 by prosecutors working with the respondent, terminating the criminal proceedings connected to the poisoning of the plaintiff on the territory of the United States with radioactive and toxic elements by a KGB agent, Anna Kilimnik; to revoke all the expert examination ordered by NIO and used by the respondent to terminate the criminal proceedings between 25 June 2008 and 12 June 2017; to order the respondent to pay the amount of EUR 340 000 000.00 (equivalent in BGN), representing compensation for tangible and intangible damages due to deliberate failure to act and denial of justice to initiate criminal proceedings against that person and to disguise the Russian-Ukrainian nuclear terrorism. In the substantive part of the claim, the plaintiff claims that his ex-wife, Anna Kilimnik of Ukrainian origin, who was a proven KGB agent and with whom he lived in the United States during their marriage, attempted to kill him in the United States through systematic poisoning with Russian radioactive weapons of mass destruction - a Uranus 238 aqueous solution mixed with radioactive and toxic elements, and created an organized criminal group with the participation of Bulgarian citizens hired by her in connection with frauds with real estate property in Bulgaria valued at 826,805 euro, which damaged him. On the basis of a petition filed by him, Pre-trial proceedings No 81/2011 were initiated according to the inventory of NIO and prosecutor’s file No. 17254/2009 according to the inventory of the SRPO. For the period 25.06.2008 - 12.06.2017 a series of termination orders from the SRPO were issued, respectively due to an appeal - by the SCPO and the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor"s Office, despite the evidence presented by the applicant about the criminal deeds of his ex-wife, and in particular the fact that she attempted to kill him in the above way, as well as the availability of data on the latter, which are held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States, the collection of which was denied. In this regard, it is also alleged that, by deliberately failing to take evidence and refusing to prosecute against Anna Kilimnik, the Prosecutor"s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria and its structures concealed nuclear terrorism through the use of the above means of mass destruction, deliberately bringing the proceedings against an unknown perpetrator to cover up the crime committed against him and to cooperate with a Russian-Ukrainian terrorist organization operating in the United States, thus violating the constitution rights of the claimant, who has suffered tangible and intangible damage. He claims compensation from the state through its procedural substituent – the respondent. The Court of First Instance ruled that the actions brought were inadmissible and ordered the return of the claim and the closure of the case. The appealed ruling of the appellate court assumes that the state"s responsibility can be sought in two ways – using the general procedure of Article 49 of the OCA in conjunction with article 47 of the OCA and in the special order of the SRDA, applicable only in the cases specifically settled therein; that, in the case in view of the factual statements contained in the application, none of the special hypotheses of the SRDA are applicable; that the responsibility of the state cannot be sought under the general procedure since the actions and omissions of the prosecutors that allegedly caused the damages, are within the scope of their official powers which, according to Article 132 of the Constitution, have functional immunity. Taking into account the statement attached to the private appeal and the reasoning of the court panel in the appealed ruling, the Supreme Court of Cassation, III civil division finds that the cassation appeal should not be admitted to a cassation examination because the criterion for a legal issue within the meaning of Art. 280, para. 1 CPC and justification of the grounds under Art. 280, para 1, §3 of the Civil Procedure Code (in the version in accordance with par. 74 of the Act on the amendment of the CPC), promulgated in State Gazette No 86 / 2017, are not present. The question raised by the appellant in this case concerning the direct effect of the Constitution is worded precisely and clearly, it is specific, related to the decisive considerations of the court, the subject-matter of the dispute is and has determined the legal conclusions of the appellate court in the contested ruling, and hence covers the requirement for a general justification for access to cassation. However, the cassation complainant should justify in the statement the grounds under Art. 280, para 1, pt. 3 of CPC but not only in a declaratory manner. Pursuant to the mandatory provisions for the courts in the Republic under item 4 of the ID No. 1 / 19.02.2010 of the GMCTC of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria on interpretative case No 1/2009, the legal issue relevant to the outcome of the case is relevant to the correct application of the law, where its examination contributes to changing the case-law created by inaccurate interpretation or to updating its interpretation in the light of changes in legislation or public order, and for the development of the law: where the laws are incomplete, unclear or contradictory, so as to create a case law on their application or to update it. It should be pointed out that the regulations applied by the courts under Art. 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, Art. 45 and Art. 49 of the OCA and Art. Articles 1, 2, 2a and 26 of the SRDA are clear, there is a long established case law of the SCC, which is respected by the ruling in question. With the adoption of item 1 of Interpretative Decision No. 3 of 22.04.2004, under No. 3/2004, the Supreme Court of Cassation defined the provision of Art. 7 of the Constitution, as proclaiming the principle of state liability for damages caused by illegal acts or actions of its bodies and officials, which principle has already been developed in the legislation in force at the time of adoption of the new Constitution. It was concluded that the provision of art. Article 7 of the Constitution is not a direct way for protection, but a basic principle the realization of which is based on the law. Having complied with this mandatory interpretation in its act, the appellate court did not give grounds for admission of cassation. The complainant"s understanding that if it did not qualify the claim on the basis of Art. 7 of the Constitution, understood as a substantive rule, the appellate court has undermined the direct effect of the Basic Law, shall not be shared. An argument in support of such a complaint cannot be inferred from the content of Decision No. 10 of 6.10.1994 on const. case No. 4/1994 of the CC. In the Constitutional Court"s judgment, it is assumed that the reference to the Constitution in a dispute in the civil, criminal, administrative or other branches of law does not require a special procedure for its resolution. The protection of the law, in which the immediate action will be implemented, will be realized based on the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, etc., i.e. the regulations of the applicable procedural laws are applicable. By assigning a qualification to the claim in accordance with the general civil law basis, allowing for seeking security liability of each contracting authority, and provided that no grounds for qualification under the SRDA have been stated and established as a special law, the ruling court applied the effective civil procedural and substantive law in its precise meaning and volume. The grounds of Art. 280, para 2 of the CPC - obvious irregularity, as an independent prerequisite for admitting a cassation appeal of the contested ruling – are not present. The findings of the courts correspond to the data on the case and they fall under the hypothesis of the law. As a qualified form of irregularity, the apparent irregularity is linked to a manifestly gross violation of the law or manifest unreasonableness due to a gross violation of the rules of the formal logic, whereas in the present case neither the conclusions on the applicable law, nor the justification of the case point to such a qualified infringement. Based on the above, the Supreme Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, RULED: IT DOES NOT ALLOW a cassation appeal against Ruling No. 1324 of 15.04.2019 on private civil case No. 1121/2019 on the docket of the Sofia Court of Appeal. The ruling is not subject to appeal. CHAIRMAN: (Signature) MEMBERS: (Signature) The copy was certified on 16.07.2019 by the Archives officer. (Signature) A. Yaneva Round seal of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Archives APOSTILLE (Convention de la Haye du 5 octobre 1961) 1. Country : Republic of Bulgaria 2. This public document has been signed by: A. Yaneva 3. acting in the capacity of : Archives officer 4. bears the seal/stamp of : Supreme Court of Cassation CERTIFIED 5. At Sofia, Bulgaria 6: on 18.07.2019 7. by Ministry of Justice 8. No. 12552 9. Seal/stamp: [Ministry of Justice – Republic of Bulgaria] 10. Signature: [signature] http://www.justice.government.bg/new/Apostille/ code: 221929073218552