1 TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL THROUGH SOFIA CITY LAWCOURT COMPANY DEPARTMENT, 1ST SESSION OF A COURT APPEAL AGAINST

THE VERDICT OF OCT. 30TH 2006 UNDER CASE 11062/ 2006 SOFIA CITY COURT COMPANY DEPARTMENT, 1ST SESSION OF A COURT FROM PP OMO ILINDEN PIRIN THROUGH LAWYER YONKO MILADINOV GROZEV, SAK, N 38 IVAN VAZOV ST., AP.8 SOFIA 1000, TEL. 9873838 UNDER THE ART.18, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE LAW FOR POLITICAL PARTIES

Respectable judges, With the verdict of Oct.30th 2006 at case 11062/2006, the City court of Sofia rejected the petitioners request about registering in the register of political parties the OMO ILINDEN PIRIN party. The petitioners are displeased with the verdict enacted on account of which they appeal within the seven-days term stipulated under Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Law of political parties. The verdict of appeal of the Sofia city court has decreed substantial violations of the legal proceedings and is groundless. On account of that we plead you to reverse the case for reconsideration by a different membership of the Sofia City Court with compulsory instructions. About the statement for substantial infringement of the court of justice regulations. In the session of the Court in the appealing case on the registration of OMO ILINDEN PIRIN , Oct. 18th 2006 the prosecutors office of the Sofia City Court presented evidence, accepted by the court, Experts report 512, verification NUB11355 Oct. 18th 2006, worked out by NSP-MVR, 66 declarations and two orders for preliminary investigation. The petitioners objected to the acceptance of the experts report N 512 with an argument on the protective nature of the case, which does not allow appointing

2 experts and their interrogation. The Court accepted the report despite the petitioners objection and it turned as main evidence for rejecting the application for registration. The Court decision with what the verification N 512 was accepted as a proof of the case is a grave violation of the judicial regulations under following consideration. The present legal procedure has a protective character in which the competent court verifies the facts and the circumstances, required by the law for the valid registration of a political party. In case, there is an argument about the validity of some of the produced proofs, such controversy should be given a ruling at an independent case, either civil or criminal action, in terms, there is evidence for a committed crime. This conclusion comes after the decree under Article 498 of GKP, unambiguously says that false proofs presented at a protective case are specified by order of the court. This independent investigation of the authenticity of the disputable evidence is needed because of the particular feature of the case in which it is impossible to elaborate the complete procedure on the litigation of the presented evidence and clarifying all the circumstances by witness testimony and consult experts. By reason of the above, the petitioners consider that acceptance by the court, presented by the Sofia city prosecutor experts verification and validity the decision under its conclusions is a ground infringement. Therefore on the grounds of that the verdict should be repealed. In the sitting of the court in Oct.18th 2006 the court accepted some other proofs demonstrated by the Prosecutor. However the petitioners request for being given the opportunity to put in further evidence and correct omissions in the produced documents, such as inexact or incomplete addresses and identical numbers, as well as introduce additional proofs, certifying the validity of the declared and required by the law circumstances for the regular registration of OMO ILINDEN PIRIN was traversed. The ruling with which the petitioners opportunity to present supplementary evidence was declined is another serious offence of the judicial regulations. With that traverse, which is an obvious contradiction to the common convention about registering juridical persons, the petitioners were rejected the possibility to demonstrate all the evidence verifying the relevant circumstances for the Law of political parties. This traverse juxtaposed with the given opportunity of the Sofia city prosecutors office to demonstrate proofs and the refused possibility of the petitioners to acquaint in reasonable terms with the proofs presented by the Sofia court prosecutors office, is an infraction of the underlying principles of the civil law which demands collecting of all relevant proofs and an equitable interest of the parties concerned. This infringement of the judicial principles is in direct relation to the validity of the appeal against the verdict of the Sofia city court. In the motives of the court it is specified as a reason for the traverse the lack of evidence for 50 people initiators of the party establishment, the absence of a report from the mandate committee, a graphic image of the political party, incompleteness in the lists of the party members as well as lack of exemplification of the party statutes. Despite it is controversial to what extend the demonstration of the evidence about all these circumstances is compulsory on the strength of the law by the law for political parties, the petitioners are capable of furnishing evidence in the support of the above mentioned, and would have furnished them, if they were given such an opportunity. The petitioners are able to demonstrate and they will do it, if an opportunity is given, notarial declarations (muniments) of the disputable party founders in which

3 they declare their participation at the constituent assembly, and the authentic of their free will for the party establishing. They can similarly demonstrate an exemplification of the party statutes, registration forms of all the party members whose membership is contestable and all the other evidence which verify the circumstances for the valid party establishment. The traverse of the Sofia city court to give the petitioners opportunity to demonstrate these proofs is a serious failure to observe the law and therefore the verdict should be reversed on the ground of that. About the statements of the groundlessness of the appeal against the verdict In the appeal against the verdict, the Sofia city court presumes that the absence of autographically written declarations is an absolute clause under the Law for political parties as well as the indications of the insufficiency of quorum at the constituent assembly. The petitioners consider that both conclusions of the Sofia city court are contrary to the common law. In reference to the requirement about the autographically written declarations of the founder-members regardless of the explicit decree of Article 11 of the Law for political parties, the enforcement of the decree should take into consideration the fact that you cannot put a sign of equality between the capability to write and the right of expressing of ground political rights. The right of expressing ground political will is guaranteed by the standards of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the international law norms which are of higher authority than the law of political parties. In view of that when enforcing the Article 11 of the Law for political parties, the requirement for autographically written declarations can not be absolute and some objective considerations of some Bulgarian citizens must be taken into accounts, which at the same time cannot be assumed as a ground for restriction of the basic political rights. Contrary wise leads to a policy of discrimination of the law and infringement of the Constitution as well as the international law. The absence of autographically written declarations cannot be considered as a proof of an insufficiency of quorum. In the proceedings at law the fact that the declarations were signed by the people pointed in them was not contestable and the court did not assume there were an absence of an autographical signature under the declarations and the lists of the founder-members. The signatures under the declarations as well as the signatures in the enclosed lists of the founder- members are clear evidence of presence of quorum at the constituent assembly. The court of justice also admits as a reason for infringement of the party the absence of the initiators list, as well as graphic symbols and mandate committee report. The law for political parties does not require proofs for either of these circumstances, consequently on the ground of that the present infringement is in failure to observe the law. On the above- mentioned reasons we request for reversing the verdict from Oct.30th 2006 under case 11062/2006 by the Sofia city court, 1st session of a court and reconsider the case by a different membership of the Sofia city court with compulsory instructions. Enclosed documents: A copy of the present appeal for the Supreme Court of appeal Yours faithfully, Yonko Grozev