Precedent-setting court decision against the Nations Revenue Agency

In a litigation initiated by a software company against the National Revenue Agency, the court revoked the tax assessment bill imposing 50 % fine on all dividents payments in cash. Acting as cassation instance with its final decision 4759 fo 14.7.2017, the Administrative Court in the City of Sofia confirmed the revocation by the lower instance court. Merits of the court provide fundamental contribution to the case-low in similar cases, in two separate directions: 

I. Before imposing any sanction, tax authorities shall consider if cash payments were possible at all. A software company that has never had any cash inflow, and that had all of its income proceeds through bank transfer, could never be able to initiate any substantial cash payment. The National Revenue Agency may find violation and impose sanction based on accounting error and/or primary documents misstatement. 

II. A shareholder can always conduct setting-off (netting-off) with its own company concerning mutually owed amounts. 

Those conclusions of the court potentially may have wide practical implications in accounting for dividend payments, as well as in all financial relations between a shareholder and a company in general. 

Case won and significant precedent for the film industry

With its decision of 6 April 2015, the Sofia Administrative Court revoked unlawfull rejection of state funding for an international film co-production. The 'Ovcharov & Parushev' law practice was involved in that litigation effort through legal representation and legal counceling to the applicant, one of the leading film producers in Bulgaria. 

The case dealt with unlawfull and ungrounded refusal by the National Film Centre (NFC) to grant state funding for a feature film produced by French, Belgian and Bulgarian producers. The movie treated burning social topics, while it was directed by the most awarded Bulgarian film director and it was quite expeted to be scored as primary choice for 2014 by the Art Commission of the NFC. Worths mentioning that the film's budget of € 1 880 000 euro is the bigest through the history of the Bulgarian film industry. The denied subsidy amounted to only 10 % of the film budget. 

That particular court decision is a major precedent in the matter of state aid for film industry in Bulgaria, due to the very nature of the case and thanks to the superb and thorough reasoning by Judge T. Zhilova of the Sofia Administrative Court. The decision provides detiled interpretation of the national Film Industry Act, as well as to the application of the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production and the Agreement on Cinematographic Co-production with France. 

The court rules that the NFC cannot stand above the law and in that respect the NFC is no different then any other national authority. The NFC must abide the law, must provide reasoning to all of its acts and to follow established proceedures and requirements that are known to all applicants in advance. Any change of the competition rules later in the proceedure shall be considered unlawfull. Non-written requirements and customs cannot lead to deniel of funding. 

Through that court decision and thanks to the efforts of the O&P lawyers, on 2 July 2015 the NFC granted state subsidy to the production.

Update: The film première is expected in 14 October 2015 simultaniously in Paris and Sofia and will be distributed under the title 'Face Down' or 'Tête bassée''. The film received it's first honour at the 'Golden Rose' festival - the best director award. 

(the case was supervised by Svilen Ovcharov, partner) 

A Precedent on Bank and Credit Contracts

On 30th October, 2013 the 'Ovcharov & Parushev" team achieved yet another success, now in the field of the Bank Law. By Decision of 30.10.2013 the Sofia Regional Court granted all claims filed against the DSK bank, finding unequal power contracting upon which the bank had unilaterally risen the interest rate on the credit. It is unacceptable, according to the court, for the creditor to unilaterally and arbitrary to determine the interest rate while there lacks any consent on behalf of the other party who received the credit. Such decision affirms a still new case-law on matters concerning the rights under the Banks Act and Consumer Protection Act of the banks, who have unequal power in credit contracts, compering to the other party - the loan borrowers.  

What is innovative and contributive in that decision reasonings, is that the court found breach of basic principles of the Commercial Law and the Civill Law in general, provided for in the national Contracts and Obligations Act.  Our team has been arguing for such decision for years, since the lede specials   in the bank matters often deviate form main principles of the Contract Law and even of the Roman Law - after formation of a contract, no unilateral amendments in its conditions could be valid. 

The lawyers team of our law firm express its gratitude towards our client for all the support and proffesionalism in solving the case. Having strong belief in justice we continue working in our clients benefit, facing the particularities on the Bulgarian justice system, as well as the challenges in finding suitable solutions in view of clients best interest. 

On the case worked Silvia Ovcharova, attorney-at-law, junior partner in the firm. 

A precedent verdict in Greenpeace case

A lawyer of the 'Ovcharov & Parushev' law firm was successfully involved in two-days legal battle over the case concerning the first of the Greenpeace so called 'direct actions' to happen in Bulgaria. Six of the activists were arrested by the police after 3-hour blockade over a Gazprom petrol station in Blagoevgrad in Thursday, 26th of September 2013. They faced charges of minor hooliganism and brought before the Regional Court in Blagoevgrad. Exact identity of the client cannot be revealed, as such advertisement of a law firm is prohibited by art. 42, para. 4 of the national  Attorney's Act and the Attorney's Code of Ethics. 

Notably, the court's verdict shows significant development to the jurisprudence of the national courts on cases of hooliganism charges or related to non-violent protest actions. It further develops on the existing courts case-law and administrative practice of the police authorities. 

The court reasoning states that although some deeds of the accused persons formally under 'hooliganism' definition', no punishment shall be imposed, due to very low danger to the society and since their cause is just and virtue. The defendants were acquitted of the charges. Nonetheless, they had already paid a police fine for disobeying direct police orders.  

More info: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=154049