Our recent appeal to the Supreme court againist Dkevr and our comments on Iva and Co’s

Please see our update on our recent and final appeal against Dkevr to the Supreme Administrative Court and our response to Iva and Co’s recent email.

Please see our appeal case completed by our solicitor.

Iva and Co’s NL in blue, our response in Black bold italic

Many owners have sent us questions about the following topics:

Yes, there have been many questions of your proposed plan in our newsletters, which amounted to over 40 pages. However, you did not respond or comment on them. As you know what we stated was the truth. The real truth is that your proposed plan is a lifetime time slave contract. It appears that some individuals have signed your MM contract, but not many have paid towards it. Your closing date of April 10th is only four days away, and your opening the resort in May. We are looking to see what the outcome will be.

UTILITIES

1. EVN (electricity supply) – after the re-opening, Sunset Resort will hold an official meeting with EVN to negotiate the shortest legal way to sort out the most important issues in the complex (individual connections and electricity meters for each apartment).

So you are aware our case against DKEVR the energy commission, has been appealed which the SRIOC has defended. This has gone to the final court in Bulgaria and cannot be appealed by either party. The SRIOC has taken this case to the High Court of which 2 instances were won. The high court judges agreed we should be connected.

DKEVR then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, and we won again. DKEVR appealed again, which was appealed by the SRIOC’s solicitor two weeks ago. Please note that all three judges from the highest courts in Bulgaria have agreed with us. The judges stated that all owners should be connected as all infrastructure is already there. We do not need to run new cables or install new infrastructure.

It will probably take about 6 months for a result on this but the next decision will be the final and last on this case. We will keep you posted.

Owners please don’t be fooled by smoke and mirrors as the SRIOC have done all the hard work and legal cases on this. Iva and Co took the easy route and promised to pay off all the utility bills with no promise of direct connection.

Maybe more money is to be made on daily charges so she can pay off Boyan’s dept that he doesn’t pay.

Why are DKEVR fighting this case so hard? DKEVR (The state energy regulator) should be an independent body in their approach which they have not been. WHY? If the SRIOC wins this case, it will set a precedent as a landmark case which will open to all resorts in Bulgaria to receive the same rights.

So, all resorts, condominiums and complexes all over Bulgaria in the same situation as us will be entitled to be directly connected by electricity which will cause a big problem and a lot of money to all utility companies and DKEVR.

This is why they are fighting us so hard on this.

     2. ViK (water supply) – that issue has been sorted out easier, as we informed you with the newsletter “Procedure for opening individual water accounts” sent out on 8-th March 2023″.

This is not what we have been led to believe from VIK as they are looking for 100% of owners to commit to having their own meters. Our solicitor is working on the legality of this.

“RENTAL OPTIONS”

Our team has plans for “tourism” organized differently from the previous approach. Sunset Resort, with its SPA infrastructure, has great potential (which we aim to develop) to upgrade the complex into an exclusive SPA destination on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. This will extend the “tourist season,” and our long-term plan is for the resort to become a year-round SPA destination.

Here we go again how much is that going to cost the owners who sign up to your plan.

So, more cash for rentals to Boyan – less cash for owners. Great plan!

As has been stated as fact from Iva and Boyan, the spa was rented out before the resort was closed down by Iva’s niece. You can be sure they will try and get owners to pay for all the rental and costs of this run-down SPA as part of your MM and rental contract.

To execute our plans, we will utilize all new technologies, marketing & advertising portals, and marketing professional support.

We will not rely solely on interaction with standard Tour Operators to provide tourist occupancy through “all-inclusive” programs. This limited the period the apartments were rented in the past and consequently, the income for owners from rentals was low.

So, more money for Iva and Co’s rental companies, and we bet more red tape in that rental contract. Another slave contract, no doubt. Please don’t add another 22 pages, as we are bored replying to these newsletters, and the owners are bored of reading them. Maybe just a two-pager, please. Just the highlights of how much it’s going to cost owners, how much money you’re giving to Boyan to rent his run-down commercials, and how much you are keeping.

The global trends described by experts at GWI (Global Wellness Institute) after the “Covid 19 Pandemic” indicate that there is a new trend in the field of tourism: The demand for health improvement through tourism programs (trips). The funds that tourists spend on such trips worldwide exceed $4,000,000,000,000 annually.

Please see the link: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/

Our Team’s ambitious plan is for Sunset Resort to be the first complex on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast to successfully operate on the “all-inclusive” program (during the summer) and on the SPA program year-round.

Great, once owners are not the ones paying for this. As per your MM contract, you have the authority to decide what renovations and work need to be done. If the cost of these renovations exceeds the budget, we will pay the difference. There will be no discussion, no AGM, and no voice to raise any concerns. So owners be very aware.

So, you can decide to upgrade the pools, spas and anything else you decide to rent off Boyan. If They need repair or replacement, you have the right to bill us. Boyan must be having a great laugh as we are at your plan. Boyan is thanking his lucky stars that you stepped in to save the day. Well done. You’re the one who has been fooled.

When it sounds like jobs for the boys and girls and a dictatorship it certainly is.

We will focus on the Rental options available for the owners when Sunset Resort reopens. The Rental options will be presented to all owners to approve after reopening the complex. You understand that the success of our plan for the future development of Sunset Resort will improve the profitability for owners from renting out their apartments, as well as increase the value of our properties.

Once bitten twice shy. Owners going into another rental contract – not a chance with a closed resort which you are proposing as part of your ambitious plan and you in control of who comes in and out of the resort.

As part of their purposed plan please note owners will not be able to rent out their apartment. If Iva and Co pass their purposed MM contract everyone who stays in your apartment will have to go through them as you will be part of a closed complex i.e. prison.

Owners are over signing rental contracts with anyone in Bulgaria. It’s Booking.com and Airbnb all the way. Owners have been through this before reduced rents, owners rent not paid, owner’s apartments used by the rental company without been informed, refurbishment scams, loyalty cards and Thomas Cook money which Sunset received and wasn’t passed on owners. We could go on.

The only winner was Boyan in those rental contracts and he will still be with your plan.

We see why you want to setup all this business, it’s a great plan, owners pay for everything, all refurbishments, give over their apartments and the owners foot the bill.

Owners won’t be fooled again.

We wish you luck with your plan but we will fight you all the way until you see the light and not make Sunset a money making exercise and sort out the problems first. Boyan, did this and had no regard for owners and where did it get him NOWHERE and now he is using you to do his dirty work.

Mark our words Boyan will let you setup all your plans do all his dirty work and will put you out with trash when he is done. You are all blinded by the euro signs to really see that Boyan is just playing you all as fools.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

It all depends on how much time it will take to unite 75% of the owners’ support for the implementation of our plan and reopen Sunset Resort. Please follow the link to check how many owners have already approved the M&M contract and will sign it: https://bit.ly/4ailfo9 (please mind that it may take some time for the data to load).

We need to get 75% of the owners to support our ambitious plan or SR stays shut down for many years. Our plan is the only solution offered to owners as NO other group of owners has provided an alternative.

You know and were approached on numerous occasions with our plan before your April AGM which you chose to ignore. Now, you don’t want to solve the problems that owners have because it does not fit into your money-making exercise. You are all working on how to screw owners and are not interested in their owners rights. You want to take more rights away from them. Well, good luck with that.

We have a plan for you, if you don’t want us why don’t you pay all our members what they have paid for their apartments. You can then do whatever you want with the resort. Something to think about with your business partners.

We wish you luck and wait with bated breath to see the results on the 10th April. Let’s see if Boyan comes in to save the day.

Why wouldn’t he it’s a win win situation for him.

He pays for no commercial, 82 apartments, his villas, offices Etc and you pay him hundreds of thousands of euros to rent his run down infrastructure.

Great plan

Those who still do not participate in the implementation of our plan, please contact us at: sunsetresortowners@gmail.com and we will prepare the necessary documentation for your participation in the ONLY solution to revive our investments.

No body will be contacting you. It’s not worth our energy looking forward to the 10th April so we can all book out flights to Sunset and toast your success

Kind Regards

Iva Parusheva

Petya Mihova

Our appeal case against DKEVR

THROUGH

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT – SOFIA CITY

1301, Sofia, George Washington St. #17

TO

SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

RESPONSE TO A CASSATION COMPLAINT

represented by:

Lawyer Teodor Ruslanov SHEIKOV

AK-Burgas,

REGARDING :

Decision No. 464 of 17.11.2024 At the Administrative Court of Sofia-city, Third Department, 8th Chamber. According to adm.d. No. 7988 according to the inventory for 2023 .

In connection with a cassation appeal of the Commission for Energy and Water Regulation

HONORABLE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES,

In connection with Art. 213 a of the APC, I give an answer to a cassation appeal from the Commission for Energy and Water Regulation, with which Decision No. 464 of 17.11.2023 is appealed . At the Administrative Court of Sofia-city, Third Department, 8th Chamber. According to adm.d. No. 7988 according to the inventory for 2023 .

I consider that the complaint is fundamentally unfounded.

I believe that the rendered decision, namely Decision No. 464 of 17.11.2024. of the Administrative Court Sofia-city, Third Department, 8th Chamber. According to adm.d. No. 7988, which returns the file with mandatory instructions for the interpretation of the law, is correct and lawful.

I believe that the annulment grounds presented in the cassation appeal are not present.

The appealed decision corresponds to the substantive law and is justified, therefore it should be left in force.

1. First of all, I fully agree with the reasons of the Administrative Court of Sofia-city, Third Department, 8th Chamber.

2. Secondly, I emphasize that this case is also the subject of a petition Petition 0442/2023 before the European Parliament.

In this case, I present this statement to emphasize the critical nature of this case study. Petition 0442/2023 was initiated on 28/04/2023, with which the current case went beyond national borders, attracting the attention of the European Parliament and emphasizing the imperative requirement that Bulgaria align itself with the laws and values of the European Union.

Overview of the petition and the EU legislative framework

Petition No: 0442/2023 targets non-compliance with Directive 2009/72/EC (replaced by DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/944 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ) on common rules for the internal market in electricity by the Bulgarian national regulator and the state operator of universal service. This directly infringes the rights of apartment owners in the resort of Sunset, Pomorie, Bulgaria, to have direct access to electricity services, highlighting the wider systemic disregard for EU consumer rights protection in Bulgaria.


The issue was widely discussed during a hearing on 24 October 2023 in Brussels, which highlighted the importance the European Union attaches to Bulgaria’s ongoing regulatory non-compliance. Statements were made by:


Members of the European Parliament: Peter Jahr, Petar Vitanov, Clare Daly, Tatjana Ždanoka, Mick Wallace

Achille Hanosset (European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy)

Teodor Sheykov (petitioner)

The decision to leave the petition open and request a written response from the Commission highlights the EU’s concern about Bulgaria’s regulatory practices affecting consumer rights.

Concern raised by the European Commission

An important aspect of this case is the identification by the European Commission of a major compliance problem within the Bulgarian state operator’s activities with regard to European law and national legislation.

This has led to a disturbing trend in which the national regulator and the state operator show disregard not only for the law, but also for the mandatory court instructions, namely the instructions of the Supreme Court, which are materialized in Decision No. 1851 of 28.02.2022. in administrative case 7088/2021. potentially undermining due process and consumer protection with impunity.

In my opinion, the problem is particularly acute because there is no lack of a legal basis, nor a deficit of judicial power, on the contrary, and yet it is practically impossible to achieve the intended result, namely access to electricity by not only my trustee but also to about 600 other owners in the complex.


Given the systemic nature of these challenges and their implications for Bulgaria’s compliance with EU directives, we urge the Supreme Administrative Court to consider the broader EU legal framework and the European Commission’s compliance concerns.

This, unfortunately, another appeal is not just a legal dispute, but a key moment for Bulgaria to demonstrate its commitment to EU principles, ensuring that regulatory practices protect consumer rights and are in line with European standards.

We are looking for a decision from the Supreme Administrative Court that recognizes the seriousness of the situation and the need for Bulgaria to fulfill its obligations under EU law, thereby protecting consumer rights and strengthening the rule of law in the Union.

In this regard, I would like to emphasize that the appealed decision of the Administrative Court – Sofia is correct and lawful, as it was a step in the right direction, which received a strong response in Europe.

Moreover, as far as I know, letters were also sent to KEVR by European MPs asking the Bulgarian regulator to comply with the decisions of the court and European law.

3. Contradiction with the Bulgarian legislation of the position of KEVR

First of all, on the factual side, it is clear that there is a connection contract from 2006, and the object is supplied with electricity. This is based on the findings of the court according to decision No. 2977/10.05.2021 under adm.d. No. 2309 of the Sofia City Administrative Court, confirmed by the Court of Appeals (adm. case 7088/2021)

Secondly, the State Commission did not take into account the effective decision No. 2977/10.05.2021 under Adm.d. No. 2309 of the Sofia City Administrative Court, confirmed by the Court of Appeals (adm. case 7088/2021).

In this sense, the decision of the SECWR contradicts the force of res judicata in the sense of art. 172 para. 2 of the APC. namely, the Supreme Administrative Court has already sent the file to the competent administrative body, the State Environmental Protection Agency, with mandatory instructions on the interpretation and application of the law.

In this case, I am quoting verbatim the instructions of the Supreme Court, which are materialized in Decision No. 1851 of 28.02.2022. According to administrative case 7088/2021.

“And the summary reason for KEVR’s refusal does not find support in the applicable regulations. Sh. Collins owns a separate site in a building put into operation, for which it was accepted in the KEVR decision contested before the court, that it is connected to the electricity distribution network of Elektrorazpradelenie Yug JSC.

From placing the electrical equipment under voltage and actual use of electrical energy, it follows that the requirements of Art. 23, para. 1 of Ordinance No. 6 of 24.02.2014 on the connection of producers and customers of electric energy to the distribution electric networks, including those related to the provided means for measuring the energy consumed by future customers.”

The issuance of similar acts by KEVR is within the material competence of the commission. In view of the powers it has and given the specific factual situation, KEVR should have issued a decision on the substance of the dispute, on the basis of Art. 22, para. 1, para. 5 and para. 7 of ZE, cf. Art. 147, paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. 3/2013, giving mandatory instructions to Elektrorazpradelenie Yug JSC.

It should have applied the relevant legislation. According to the provision of Art. 117, para. 8 ZE, the owners of electrical systems and equipment, subject to technical possibility and free capacity, provide their use to the operator of the electricity transmission network, respectively to the operator of the electricity distribution network, for the purposes of the conversion and transmission of electric energy to other customers, the use is granted after concluding contract at a price determined according to a methodology approved by the commission, and in case of failure to reach an agreement, the commission orders the provision of use and payment at a price determined by the commission according to the methodology. Accordingly, the commission is an active party and obliges to provide the use, for which it determines a price that should be paid to the owner by the electricity supply company.”

Illegality of KEVR’s findings and decisions

a. Totally illegal KEVR, on the one hand, in its decision denies long-established facts that Mr. Shawn Collins owns a site that has already been annexed.

b. Secondly, KEVR finds that it cannot decide the dispute on its merits, as it is not a competent authority. This completely contradicts the cited legal acts.

c. thirdly, KEVR did not comply with the given mandatory instructions on the interpretation and application of the law.

Quite rightly, Mr Sh.Collins complained that it was not within his power to build and commission electrical connection facilities, namely a new low voltage cable line at the property boundary. It should be noted that this is an already connected holiday complex, cable lines exist and the infrastructure is in place. What’s more, as far as I know, the company “Electric Distribution South” EAD is even the owner of the medium voltage infrastructure in the complex.

4. Contradiction with European legislation

Also, the decision of the State Environmental Protection Agency contradicts the European rules for access to a universal service. Moreover, these are rules of a higher rank and in case of contradiction, the by-laws should not apply.

The cited normative regulation should be interpreted in accordance with the normative regulation of a higher level (consistent interpretation), and in case of contradiction it should not be applied.

Mr. Collins has the status of a residential customer, being the owner of an apartment in “Sunset Resort”, Pomorie, in this capacity, he was refused connection to the electricity distribution network of “Elektrorazpradelenie YG” EAD. All the flats have electricity, but Mr Collins does not have an individual lot to measure electricity.

The connection to the electricity supply network is through the Connection Contract No. 1975 of 13.12.2006, and in practice the electricity used as an end user and household customer is at prices that are not those for household customers, and there is no information about

consumption, nor can he change the supplier of electricity, being practically deprived of absolutely all rights of DIRECTIVE 2009/72/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF

COUNCIL dated July 13, 2009 on the general rules for the internal electricity market and on the repeal of Directive 2003/54/EC. ((replaced by DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/944 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL) )

On 16.10.2020, MEP Claire Daly attended a public meeting in Pomorie, extensively documented in the media space (https://www.24chasa.bg/novini/article/9124367).

The meeting was attended by representatives of the Committee of Irish Owners (SRIOK), MRRB, EVN, VV and the investor of Sunset Resort, Mr. Boyan Bonev. Within the framework of the present case study, the question concerning the rights of electricity consumers is important.

As a result of the meetings held between the parties, a declaration was made to Boyan Bonev, the investor of “Sunset Resort”, Pomorie, that he would provide assistance.

However, it should be borne in mind that even if the investor does not provide assistance, the CEVR must play an active role and resolve the dispute in substance following the procedure under Art. 117, para. 8 ZE,

With a view to the completeness of the thesis, the ECEC is not only a national body, its powers and objectives are also provided for at the European level in Chapter IX of DIRECTIVE 2009/72/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL dated July 13, 2009. (replaced by DIRECTIVE (EU ) 2019/944 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 June 2019 on general rules for the internal electricity market and amending Directive 2012/27/EU )

The main objectives of the regulator are precisely the protection of consumer rights and universal public service.

According to the definitions laid down in Art. 2 of Directive DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/944 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 June 2019 on general rules for the internal electricity market and amending Directive 2012/27/EU

” residential customer” means a customer purchasing electricity for their own domestic consumption, excluding commercial or professional activities; DIRECTIVE 2009/72/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 July 2009 on general rules for the internal electricity market and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC.

The national equivalent of this European norm is § 1. 2 a of the additional provisions of the Energy Act, which stipulates that a “Household customer” is a customer who buys electricity or thermal energy with heat carrier hot water or steam for heating, air conditioning and hot water supply , or natural gas for own household needs.

According to the aforementioned national law, I, in my capacity as a household consumer, am entitled to universal service. This is the right to be supplied with electricity of a certain quality within Bulgaria at reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory prices.

To ensure the provision of universal service, Member States may designate a provider to act as a last resort. Member States shall oblige distribution companies to connect customers to their network under conditions and tariffs determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 37(6).

In this case, the stated grounds of the cassation appeal, as well as of the originally appealed decision show that the KEVR is completely desisting from its legal obligations.

________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that the appealed decision is correct and legal, which is why it should be

fully confirmed.

PLEASE leave Decision No. 464 of 11/17/2024 in force. At the Administrative Court of Sofia-city, Third Department, 8th Chamber. According to adm.d. No. 7988 according to the inventory for 2023 .

I ASK you to award costs.

With respect:

__________________________

Adv. Teodor Sheykov