2006.05.02 Submit Collect Evidence ENG

8/14/2019 2006.05.02 Submit Collect Evidence ENG

1/6

:

: .. 8828/2005

:

.

, 1000

: 02.5.2006 .

,

. 4 5

8828/2005. .. 1118

, . 200 . 1, , . ... 17/2004..

Grounds

The Applicant requests the Courts indulgence as he explains the need for accepting

additional documents into evidence and for making additional requests to the Court for the

collecting of evidence.

The court is requested to recall the Applicants complaint as having a legal subject matter

alleging direct and indirect discrimination the natural and proximate cause of which is article

4 of ORDER LC 4-277/02, a general administrative order issued by the Minister for Justiceand effecting only the rights or obligations and legitimate interests of individuals in Bulgarian

prisons who not citizens of Bulgaria, therefore ORDER LC 4-277/02 is subject to the

jurisdiction of this Court [see article 5 Law for the Supreme Administrative Court].

However, article 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/02 and the Minister for Justices instruction to prison

administrative officials that they isolate from all others any who is not a citizen of

Bulgarian is only the progenitor to what are countless general and individual administrative

acts and actions of direct and indirect discrimination taken by officials employed by the

Defendant when executing the Ministers order. These general and individual administrative

acts are considered by the Applicant to be an intrinsic part of the legal subject matter of thehis complaint and are according to article 28 of Law for the Supreme Administrative Court

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.


2/6

A prime example of this a priori1 reasoning by the Applicant is his petitioning the Court onthe 14.03.2006 to ORDER the Defendant to identify and produce a copy of the general or

individual administrative act issued by the Defendant sometime in 2002 or 2003 and whereby

the of the Sofia prisons 10-th group has made his observing of Bulgarian national

law according to article 17a(1) contingent on the property status of a non-Bulgarian

prisoner [see Plaintiffs evidence 2003 brochure printed by the Defendant]. This yetunidentified administrative act is the natural and proximate cause for Sofia prison officials to

refuse some 38 non-Bulgarian nationals their candidacy before the Sofia prisons parole

Commission [see article 17 ]. And this raises a further question, the lawfulness of those

individual administrative actions

This raises a further question,

As a result, the Applicant is required to proceed a posteriorwhen attempting to identify tothis Court the countless general and individual administrative acts and actions of direct and

indirect discrimination taken by prison officials and whose progenitor is article 4 of ORDER

LC 4-277/02 conginFURTHERMORE, it is impossible to ignore the fact that The direct effectas a new criterion before by introducing a property criterion

that also unlawfully discriminate direct antecedent of which is article 4 of ORDER LC 4-

277/02 and the words isolate from all others. property status prohibits them from are not

citizens of Bulgaria. and . acts and numerous. And is two questions.

The first question strictly one of law and the Applicants reasoning a priori2;

That any practice or policy causing the segregation and isolation of an individual

solely on account of his non-Bulgarian nationality is a form direct discrimination

incompatible with fundamental principles of natural law and also contravenes tangible

legal provisions of Bulgarias constitution, its international treaties and national laws

and it is therefore unlawful, a prior, the particular provisions for segregation andisolation of foreign citizens as found in the Defendant Ministry for Justices ORDER

LC 4-277/2002 are manifestly flawed and unlawful.

Therefore the second subject matter of the Applicants complaint to the Court evolves, a

posteriori3, from the effects of general, individual and collective administrative acts or actions

where officials of the Defendant create rights or obligations and affect rights or legitimate

interests of individuals and is a question of the in personam jurisdiction of the Supreme

Administrative Court to judicially review administrative acts or actions whose natural andproximate4 cause is article 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/02 and notwithstanding the source to be the

administrative Commission formed under article 17 .

the administrative acts or actions of the Sofia prison and the Main Directorate for the

Execution of Punishments officials applying an unlawful administrative order issued by the

Defendant requiring the segregation and isolation of all non-Bulgarians prisoners. issue

1 From the general to the particular

2 From the general to the particular3 From known effects to their inferred cause4 Proximate cause or consequence that which immediately precedes the effect


3/6

general or individual administrative acts interpreting any conclusion accepting that these

provisions of article 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/02 are a form of unlawful direct discrimination

and is concerned first with the action the application of an unlawful discrimination. and.

However, on the Applicants presenting or requesting evidence to clarify the facts connected

to these effects, both the prosecution and the Defendant have questioned the relevance andpersonal jurisdiction of this Court to determine the lawfulness of general and individual

administrative actions taken by individual officials of the Defendant or to judicially review

the lawfulness of those administrative actions

Defendant. According to art. 28 of the Law for the Supreme Administrative Court and article

120(2) of Constitution for the Republic of Bulgaria as interpreted in recent jurisprudence

issued by the Supreme Administrative Courts [see European Court judgment in MIHAILOV

v. BULGARIA (Application no. 52367/99) 21 July 2005 section 24mutatis mutandis . 1580 4 1999 . . . 4869/1998 ., , .; . 4491 6

1999 . . . 937/1999 ., , .; . 446 1 2000 .

. . 3513/1999 ., , .; . 3450 30 2000 . . . 7347/1999, , .; . 6475 3 2002 . . . 2611/2002 ., ,

], therefore subject to judicial review are also those administrative decisions taken by

the collective body formed by officials of the Defendant under article 17 of the Law for the

Execution of Punishments when

and in the case of non-Bulgarian nationals imprisoned in Bulgaria and their families they have

a legitimate interest in testing the lawfulness of any administrative act that creates individual

criterion not legislated into a provision of the national law [Art. 70(1) CC] to be collectively

observed by the Defendants officials. applicable enviosned in law does not appear as a

provision of Bulgarian criminal law decision Commission [] intereseted Defendants officials

have collectively created an obligation to settle debts and natural jurdiction the, the Applicant

reasoning here;

That, from the facts is established the known effects on all non-Bulgarian nationals

servicing their criminal sentences at the maximum security penitentiary facility

attached to a prison in the city of Sofia, these effects being the following;

1) That, as a non-Bulgarian national imprisoned at the Sofia prison you are required

by prison officials to satisfy, ultra licitum5

, a monetary criterion before you cansecure your candidacy before the Sofia prison parole Commission [see art. 17] for a possible conditional early release. Insodoing, Sofia prison officials and

officials of the Main Director for the Execution of Punishments, ultra fines

mandati6, exceeded their individual authority as is regulated by the and

other normative acts issued by the Defendant;

2) That, a non-Bulgarian national can expect Sofia prison officials also act

collectively to impose an unlegislated a monetary criterion for their conditional

early release or probation. The Commission formed by officials of the Defendant

according to article to refuse his conditional early release reviewed by the

appearing as a candidate ing appearing as a the Defendants is liable for every

5 Beyond what is permissible or legal6 Beyond the limits of the mandate


4/6

general and individual administrative actions taken by a collective administrative

body ultra vires the power granted it by law and exceeding legally legislated

mandate according art. 17 officials appearing as individual voting members

of the Sofia prison parole Commission [see art. 17 ] , officials of the

Defendant that [art. 70(1) CC]. Insodoing, and it is the Defendant who when

adding ex officio the criterion of a monetary settlement [see page 7 of DefendantsBrochure].the Bulgarian national law.determining this legal opportunity

according the property resources of the prisoner, and this

That in order to observe the Defendants orders that non-Bulgarians are

to isolated from all others in Bulgaria society, the administrative

officials of the Sofia prison have acted individually [ 10-

] and collectively [Commission according to art. 17 ] to

continue the imprisonment of all non-Bulgarian citizens

notwithstanding that they have satisfied all the legal and subjective

requirements of art. 70(1) of CC. This effect is documented in the

Plaintiffs evidence [see inter alia Exhibit 7, Plaintiffs list of 37foreign citizens formally and subjectively eligible for parole as of

31.12.2005].

It is document in [Commission art. 17 ] PROTOCOLS as prepared

by Sofia prison officials that conditional early release is routinely

refused until such time as a non-Bulgarian settles his civil obligations

[see 20.10.2005 and 20.04.2006 Commission PROTOCOLS and the

case of Armenian national Carkes Zahar Vartanian]. The reasoning for

this appears to be found in a they are assured there is no legal

prohibition for the immediate deportation from Bulgarian of any non-

Bulgarian once being released. Something that the Defendants officials

know cannot happen until the settlement, extinguishment or terminating

of the coercive administrative punishment imposed by the Ministry for

Interior according to Art. 39a item 5 in conj. Art. 43(1) items 2 and 3 of

the Law for Foreigners in Bulgaria;

3) To have no possibly for supervised or unsupervised employment off prison

grounds;

, unsupervised leaves, supervised and unsupervised employment off prison grounds

determined by prison officials according to nationality and property status, refusedcandidacy for conditional early release, on other rights or opportunities of non-

Bulgarian citizens farising from the practice and application of item 4 of the

Defendant Ministry for Justices ORDER LC 4-277/2002 go beyond that of non-

Bulgarian nationals convicted for crimes in Bulgarian being segregated by officials of

the Defendant only in maximum security penitentiary facilities attached to a prison in

Sofia and isolated there from all others. , notwithstanding citizens how has the

observance and Applicants new evidence and request for evidence concerns

clarification of the facts And should the Court agree with the Applicants a priorireasoning that item 4 of Ministry for Justice ORDER LC 4-277/2002 is unlawful, then

the Applicant is requesting the Court considers the question of affect, the know effects

of the administrative policy and practice of the Defendants ORDER to isolate all


5/6

non-Bulgarian citizens from all others, others being citizens of Bulgaria, isdocumented to be the following;

1. embodied in numerous individual administrative orders issued by officials of the Sofia

prison and Main Directorate for Punishments when observing the Defendants. These

countless administrative decisions and internal orders must also be the legal subject matter ofthese hearings as they are a consequenceofSofia prison officials interpreting and applying

the unlawful provisions of item 4 of Ministry for Justice ORDER LC 4-277/2002.

The Applicant were clarify the facts and will provide prove, a posterior, that administrative

decisions taken by officials of the Defendant when

are refused to non-Bulgarian citizens needing to prove his reasoning To simplify the

Applicants reasoning he submits the following graphic representation of how administrative

decision taken by the Defendants officials parole, ;

Graph

of to also examine those other administrative act that are a natural and proximate result of

finding the by this court, particularly as it concerns unlawful internal administrative policies

and practices as established by the recently dismissed former warden of the Sofia prison Mr.

Dimitar Raichev and SCP administration interpretations of Ministry for Justice ORDER LC 4-

277.

1) The Applicant first submit into evidence official documents that strongly suggest

malfeasances committed by officials of the Sofia prison as follows;

a)

members crimes The complexity of the present complaint should not be underestimated.

While the first question of direct discrimination before the court concerns purely a question of

law id est do the provisions of item 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/02 contravene tangible legalprovisions of the Constitution and are therefore incompatible with the negative restrictions

against discrimination according to nationality as found in the Law for Protection against

Discrimination and the legislated provisions of the Law for the Execution of Punishments all

forms , the second question before I submit the following new evidence;

A list of those non-Bulgarian

()


6/6

.. 1118 ,

. 200 . 1, ,. .. . 17/2004.

Documents

2006.05.02 Submit Collect Evidence ENG