In May 2025, it will be 10 years since the death of the woman in labor Preslava Parvanova. Does anyone remember her, huh!? The case is from 10 years ago. 10 years have passed. 10 years! 10 years! How long is 10 years? That's exactly why we're talking about it - 10 years. If a case doesn't end in 10 years - it's over. It expires under the statute of limitations. What was the case 10 years ago? Preslava passed away a day after giving birth to her daughter Dimana. Recently, the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office terminated criminal proceedings that led to the tragedy. This happens just a month before it expires under the statute of limitations. We recall that the 29-year-old woman from Karlovo, who was a lawyer in a Sofia law firm, died on May 15, 2015 in a hospital in the capital. A case ends under the statute of limitations or how fast Bulgarian justice is... Lawyer Gancho Ganchev, who represents Julian Parvanov, the husband of the deceased, spoke to FACTI.
- Lawyer Ganchev, the case with Preslava went on for 10 years in our judicial system. Why did it happen like this, what didn't happen as it should for there to be justice?
- Justice means that everyone gets what they deserve – according to their deeds, needs or merits, depending on the context. This includes: Equality before the law – all people should be treated equally, regardless of gender, origin, religion or social status. Honesty – decisions should be made objectively and without bias. Responsibility – when someone causes harm, they should bear the consequences, and the victim – should receive compensation or support. Distribution of resources and opportunities – people should have access to basic needs and chances for development, regardless of their starting position in life. Justice does not always mean "everyone should get the same", but rather "everyone should get what is right and deserved for them".
In the case of Preslava, unfortunately, as her husband Julian Parvanov said, during these 10 years, especially now after the termination of the proceedings, he has felt more like a fool. That is the feeling. Someone is making fools of us! Whether it is a prosecutor, an investigator, an expert, or a judge – it does not matter. The whole system is making fools of us.
Unfortunately, the case of Preslava Parvanova is not unique, but rather chronic for our justice system.
Preslava was only 29 years old when she died on May 15, 2015 at the capital's "Dr. Shterev" hospital, the day after giving birth by planned cesarean section. Her operation was successful, without complications, and a healthy baby girl was born - Dimana. However, the next day, Preslava suddenly collapsed and died. The hospital's version is that the cause of her death was massive pulmonary thromboembolism - a condition that can be fatal and is often difficult to predict even with modern medical care. In most of the conclusions in the deaths of women in childbirth, this is the diagnosis in absentia. Preslava's family - her husband Julian and her father Dimo Arizanov - both then and today they express doubt about the impartiality of the proceedings and insist on a full investigation. According to clinical data, Preslava was healthy, without chronic diseases, so nothing foreshadowed the tragedy.
Her husband still states today that he has not received an official autopsy result
even months after the incident, which raises additional questions and concerns. We still do not have an answer to the question of why and how this tragedy happened. The questions remain, but, unfortunately, there are no answers. Unfortunately, both my clients and many other Bulgarians in this position have lost confidence in our judicial system.
The proceedings themselves were conducted under the hypothesis of Art. 123 para. 1 of the Criminal Code - whoever causes death to another due to ignorance or negligent performance of an occupation or other legally regulated activity, which constitutes a source of increased danger, is punished with imprisonment from one to six years. What is the pity here? The pity is that a month before the general statute of limitations for the crime under Art. 123, para. 1, namely 10 years, the prosecutor's office terminated the proceedings due to lack of evidence of the hospital's guilt. That is, in this situation, there is no way the prosecutor's office can be accused of terminating it due to the statute of limitations, because it was terminated before the expiration of the statutory period. Isn't this a high form of hypocrisy and mockery of the grief and expectations of the relatives?
For greater clarity for your readers: The institution of limitation in criminal proceedings is considered in the provisions of Art. 80, 81 of the Criminal Code. In connection with the application, mandatory acts of the Supreme Court have also been issued - Interpretative Decision No. 28/02.03.1959 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria and Interpretative Decision No. 96/01.11.1961 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria. According to Art. 81, para. 3 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the suspension or interruption of the limitation period, criminal prosecution is excluded if a period has expired that exceeds by one-half the period provided for in the previous article (Art. 80 of the Criminal Code). According to Art. 80, para. 1, item 3 of the Criminal Code, criminal prosecution is excluded by limitation when it has not been initiated for ten years for penalties punishable by imprisonment for more than three years. In this way, the so-called The "absolute limitation period" for a crime under Art. 123, para. 1 of the Criminal Code is 15 years. However, in order for the "absolute limitation period" to be applicable, it is necessary that the criminal prosecution was conducted against a SPECIFIC PERSON. In the event that no criminal prosecution was initiated against a specific person (the case was conducted against an unknown perpetrator, as in this case), the so-called "GENERAL LIMITATION PERIOD" is observed, which in this case is 10 years (Art. 80, para. 1, item 3 of the Criminal Code). In this sense, the mandatory case law is that the limitation period can be interrupted only when the action of the competent authority to reveal the committed crime is directed at a specific person (Interpretation Decision No. 28/02.03.1959 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria). Otherwise, the actions do not interrupt the statute of limitations. Actions that interrupt the statute of limitations are summoning the accused, questioning the accused, preparing an indictment, bringing the case to court. In the present case, no such action was taken against a specific person. The actions of the prosecutor's office are legal, but are they moral?
- You are appealing the termination of the criminal proceedings before the Sofia City Court. Is this a desperate move?
- This is the only thing we can do at this stage. I hope that the Sofia City Court will accept our arguments for the illegality of the decree terminating the SGP and return it back to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. But this will not solve the problem, because we are in the hypothesis of an expiring statute of limitations for the crime under Art. 123, as I indicated above.
The termination of criminal prosecution and the imposed punishment is related to the expiration of a period, which in law is called a statute of limitations.
- What are the types of statute of limitations?
- In criminal law, we distinguish two types of criminal statute of limitations - depending on whether there is a judgment/decision under Art. 68 or no such judicial acts have been issued. The first type is a statute of limitations, which excludes the right to carry out criminal prosecution. It is regulated in Articles 80 and 81 of the Criminal Code and extinguishes the right of the state to initiate criminal prosecution against a specific person for a crime of a general nature. According to Article 80, para. 1 of the Criminal Code, criminal prosecution is excluded by statute of limitations when it is not initiated within the periods specified in items 1-5. It is important to establish the starting point from which the limitation period begins to run. It depends on the type of crime, the period of commission and the relevant punishment.
The limitation period stops running when the commencement or continuation of criminal prosecution depends on the resolution of some preliminary issue with an effective judicial act. A preliminary issue is, for example, the approval of some investigative actions by the competent court.
The limitation period is interrupted by any action of the competent authorities (one that has the authority to perform it) taken for prosecution, and only against the person against whom the prosecution is directed.
After the completion of the action that interrupted the limitation period, a new limitation period begins to run. Regardless of the suspension or interruption of the limitation period, criminal prosecution shall not be carried out if a period has elapsed that exceeds by one-half the period specified in Art. 80, para. 1 of the Criminal Code.
The second type is a statute of limitations, which extinguishes the right of the state to execute an imposed sentence. It is regulated in Article 82 of the Criminal Code and extinguishes the right to be prosecuted by the state, given the fact that from the entry into force of the sentence, and with regard to the sentence, the execution of which was postponed according to Article 66 of the Criminal Code - from the entry into force of the sentence or the ruling under Article 68, the periods specified in Article 82, para. 1 of the Criminal Code have expired.
The statute of limitations is interrupted by any action taken by the relevant competent authority against the convicted person to execute the sentence. Once the action that interrupts the statute of limitations has ended, a new statute of limitations begins to run.
To summarize, I would say that whether the guilt of a doctor, obstetrician-gynecologist, nurse, or any other medical personnel is proven, if the statute of limitations has expired, their liability cannot be sought.
- What it turns out to be. Despite the many expert reports, most of which are seven-monthly, none of them provide clarity on the cause of the tragedy. From expert report to expert report and so on for 10 years…
- The termination of the case is based on the conclusion of the supervising prosecutor from the State Police Prosecutor's Office that the answers of the experts answered all questions regarding the death of the woman in labor, supported by the interrogation of the witnesses and the attached medical documentation. In his ruling, the supervising prosecutor indicated that there is no causal relationship between the violated norm or rule of the perpetrator and the death of the woman in labor. According to the supervising prosecutor, pulmonary embolism is not an unusual complication, it cannot be predicted and prevented, even against the background of anticoagulant prophylaxis.
Without reason, the supervising prosecutor assumed that “even if the basic life support, carried out without special equipment, had not been performed in its “ventilation” part, this would not have affected the fatal outcome. This is complete absurdity! The prosecutor assumed that even if the woman in labor had not been provided with first aid and subsequent ventilation with an apparatus, and by an anesthesiologist, with an apparatus and respiratory support, she would still have died.
There are serious contradictions in the seven-month medical examinations themselves.
and in the first place is indicated as the cause of death – massive fatty pulmonary thromboembolism. According to the prosecutor, "it cannot be ruled out that the condition arose as a result of disseminated /multiple/ embolisms in medium-sized vessels and subsequent pulmonary-coronary reflex with acute ischemic myocardial damage." "Fat embolism in the lungs occupied over 50% of the pulmonary capillaries." Who and how calculated that it was a 50% blockage of capillaries? It is claimed that such a complication is unpredictable, but the cause of its occurrence is NOT INDICATED. It is stated that "there is a lack of prevention and there are no means and clinical methods for controlling it." Note that everywhere in the decree, the probabilities and possible causes of death are mentioned, but in the operative part of the decree, the prosecutor's office is categorical that the cause of death was massive fat thromboembolism.
Secondly, it is stated that Preslava had a heart disease that could not be established during pregnancy, but was established after the autopsy.
No evidence in this direction has been collected. And again, assumptions by the supervising prosecutor follow.
Thirdly, due to intentional actions or inactions by the prosecutor's office and the experts, the issue of the established bruise in the occipital region, in the medulla oblongata, as a result of Preslava Parvanova's fall is avoided. It is alleged that the injury is superficial, but data on examinations and medical documents that would indicate this claim are not part of the attached materials in the case. The same contradicts the photographic material and data from the autopsy. There is no evidence to indicate whether there is a causal relationship between the fall and the death that occurred. I would like to note that only a day after we appealed the prosecutor's decision to discontinue the proceedings, we received a refusal to exhume the body, without the right to appeal.
It is also pointless to comment on the many contradictions in the testimonies of the medical staff, which are diametrically opposed. They have even impressed the experts.
Next…