Striking violations have been observed by the lawyers of VC "Slavia", who filed a statement of claim to declare the Accountability and Election Meeting of the Bulgarian Volleyball Federation as unlawfully held. The jurists believe that each one of the decisions recorded in the minutes from September 28, 2024, is unlawful and unconstitutional, and there are grounds for their annulment. Meanwhile, the court suspended the registration of the new Management Board of the federation until the case is resolved.
The reasons of the jurists, based on which they requested this procedure from the Sofia City Court, also became clear.
The first is that the procedure for convening and holding the general meeting has been violated, as a discrepancy was noted between the agenda announced in the invitation and the actual decisions taken at the meeting, which are not even reflected in the minutes. This alone vitiates the entire procedure and leads to the unlawfulness of the decisions of the General Assembly from September 28, the jurists believe.
Initially, the meeting did not start at 10:00 AM, as there was no quorum. However, no one officially came out to announce that the meeting was postponed by 1 hour and could start an hour later with the clubs present. In reality, it was delayed by 2 hours, the statement of claim alleges. This was also reported by the media, who were in front of the hall but were not allowed inside. The statement of claim states that this procedure was also violated, as the findings on page 1 of the meeting minutes, that "by the second announced hour" and "after the registration of all appearing members" a quorum was established, were not true. Neither were the members notified, nor did this happen by the second hour, the jurists claim. According to the legal experts, the purpose of this procedural ploy is to reduce the number of participants in the meeting, and to add "correct" clubs, with which it would be easier to control the situation.

The statement of claim alleges that some of the candidates for the Management Board, who were 30 people, according to the minutes, were not given the opportunity to express any opinion, and no discussions were reflected in the minutes. It could not have been a technical error or omission, because in other parts of the minutes, when there were discussions, this was reflected, although their content was not. The lawyers claim that only "correct" candidates, mainly those subsequently elected as members of the Management Board, were given the opportunity to express their reasons for running and why the members of the association should support them. The other candidates, numbering over 10, were not provided with the opportunity for their platforms to reach the volleyball community and the members present at the General Assembly, so that they could make an informed and conscious choice of which candidate to support. This, according to the lawyers, constitutes an unlawful advantage for some candidates at the expense of others and discrimination, predetermining the election of the Management Board.

One of the most striking violations observed by the jurists is in the voting for members of the new Management Board. The Non-Profit Legal Entities Act (NPLAE) explicitly provides that a member of the general meeting has no right to vote on matters concerning himself. This provision has been repeatedly violated by many members. This circumstance could be very easily checked and established in the election documents and ballots, claim the complainants, according to whom this fact vitiates the election of the Management Board, as well as of the subsequently elected chairman of the Management Board.

At the beginning of the General Assembly, although not reflected in the minutes, it was decided that the election for the Management Board and the Chairman of the Management Board would be secret. However, this was clearly not adhered to, as was evident from the minutes themselves, as on the back of each ballot there was a declaration with the full details of each voting member. Absolutely nowhere in the invitation to convene the General Assembly was it foreseen that the voting method would be similar, nor does such a possibility exist in the Statute or the NPLAE, the lawyers claim.
At the held General Assembly, members who paid their membership fees minutes before the assembly itself were allowed to vote, which is in clear contradiction with the Statute of the BFV, the statement of claim alleges.

According to Article 12, Paragraph 6 of this Statute, decisions cannot be made on issues that were not included in the previously announced agenda, or were not duly disclosed in the invitation to convene the General Assembly. In violation of the Statute, as seen from pages 5-6 of the minutes of the meeting of September 28, 2024, a "procedural proposal" was made and voted on, that the voting be open, with paper ballots to be distributed to the delegates, as well as how the ballots should be filled in, including writing the names of the members of the association on them.
The jurists also see problems with the powers of attorney of the individuals representing the clubs. For the most part, the powers of attorney have absolutely identical content, and they do not include authorization to vote on "extraordinary" agenda items.

As an example of a power of attorney that provides representative authority for the proxy to vote even if the meeting is postponed (unlike all others), is that of "Volleyball Club Levski Sofia" - i.e. there is a single power of attorney with representative authority for the General Assembly meeting in the way it was held on 28.09.2024.

The conclusion of the jurists is that individuals without the necessary representative authority were allowed to participate and vote in the meeting.

These violations gave grounds for the lawyers to ask the court to issue a decision declaring the nullity of all decisions of the general meeting held at Hotel "Vitosha" on September 28 or their unlawfulness, due to significant procedural violations.

In addition, the jurists request that the collection of evidence be allowed through the interrogation of three witnesses who can prove the facts and circumstances stated in this statement of claim.
Outside the legal matter remain the facts stated by Ivan Seferinov, who claims that he was urged by Lyubomir Ganev to recuse himself from his candidacy for chairman of the Management Board, as well as Djigo's claims that the tellers were only "Ganev's people".

According to those familiar with judicial procedures, there is a risk that the resolution of the case will take at least half a year, during which time the federation will be governed by a Management Board with an expired mandate.

photos: Nikolay Varadinov