Dr. Blagomir Zdravkov may be held liable for document fraud and abuse of office, mediamall.info reports
We offer you the investigation of our colleagues:
The Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Children's Diseases (SBALDB) “Prof. Ivan Mitev” is the only independent specialized children's hospital in the country, and its principal is the Ministry of Health.
In April 2021, Dr. Blagomir Zdravkov was appointed executive director. This happened in the last days of the administration of the cabinet “Borisov 3“ under the influence of Kostadin Angelov.
The name of Dr. Blagomir Zdravkov became known, however, when he was proposed as Minister of Health in the draft cabinet of Nikolay Gabrovski in December 2022. Throughout his tenure at the children's hospital, Dr. Zdravkov was undisturbed by the health ministers, who changed in several caretaker and regular governments. Already after his appointment, on April 21, 2021, the doctor-director concluded a second contract… with himself! As of this date, Zdravkov, as the executive director of a medical institution, has concluded a valid management and control contract with the principal of the medical institution – the Ministry of Health. This contract regulates his managerial powers and obligations as a governing body of the medical institution in accordance with applicable legislation.
As can be seen from the facsimile of the scandalous contract, Dr. Zdravkov, days after his appointment as director by the Minister of Health, with whom he concluded a contract, drew up a second contract – for a 4-hour working day and a salary of 2,500 leva for the position of “Doctor-anesthesiologist“.
Legally, the contract is null and void, since it was signed by the same individual on both sides – once in his capacity as a representative of the medical institution as an employer, and a second time – in his personal capacity as an employee. The director simultaneously exercised representative authority on behalf of the medical institution and acted on his own behalf as a party to the contract.
The contract was duly signed by a lawyer, chief accountant and staff, as required for such a contract. A separate question is whether the lawyer had the courage to tell her boss that the contract was absolutely null and void from the moment it was concluded.
According to sources in the investigation, at an unspecified point after the initial conclusion, the employment contract was replaced with a new document. During this replacement, the same registration number of the contract was retained, which creates the appearance of continuity and identity between the two documents. The new version of the contract is no longer signed by the executive director on behalf of the employer, but by another member of the World of Directors of the medical institution.
There is another disturbing fact: the lack of a deliberate decision by the Board of Directors. As a collective management body, the Board of Directors of the children's hospital has not made a decision either on the conclusion of the initial employment contract or on its subsequent replacement. But there is another detail: Dr. Zdravkov himself is also on the Board of Directors, according to a reference in the Commercial Register.
Apparently, this is why there is no record of a meeting at which the issue of the employment relationship of the executive director was discussed, as well as a decision authorizing a specific member of the board to sign an employment contract on behalf of the medical institution, as required by the regulatory provisions in such a case.
The initial employment contract, signed by the executive director both as an employer and an employee, is absolutely null and void from the moment it is concluded. The Supreme Court of Cassation in Decision No. 250/19 of 21.10.2020 categorically ruled that the simultaneous existence of the capacity of manager and worker/employee in the same managed company is inadmissible. The subsequent "replacement" of the contract not only does not remediate the nullity, but constitutes documentary fraud under Art. 308 of the Criminal Code, as well as abuse of official position under Art. 282-283 of the Criminal Code.
First, Art. 26 of the Obligations and Contracts Act stipulates the nullity of contracts that “contradict the law or circumvent it“. Self-negotiation directly violates Art. 38, para. 1 33E, which prohibits representatives from concluding transactions with themselves on behalf of the represented.
The Labor Code in Art. 61 requires that the employment contract be concluded “between the employee and the employer“, which presupposes two different persons.
A person cannot have contradictory rights and obligations towards himself – he cannot exercise disciplinary authority over himself, nor can he charge and pay remuneration.
In case of violation of labor legislation, the Labor Inspectorate has the authority under Art. 405a of the Labor Code to declare retroactive the employment relationships and issue mandatory regulations. The official who committed the violation is personally liable with fines from 1,000 to 10,000 leva per violation.
However, Bulgarian law does not recognize a mechanism for “”healing“ void contracts. In the case of the contract concluded by Dr. Zdravkov with himself, the voidness is absolute and insurmountable – the contract is considered non-existent from the very beginning. Art. 26, para. 2 33D states that void contracts “are neither valid nor enforceable“ and are treated “as if they had never been executed“. The replacement of the signature by another member of the Board of Directors does not create a valid contract, but represents a new legal fact with separate legal consequences. Retaining the same number has no legal significance for validity – each contract is assessed independently against the requirements of the law.
At the time of the conclusion of the contract, Dr. Blagomir Zdravkov was also in a conflict of interest under the Anti-Corruption Act (ACCA). As the executive director of the specialized children's hospital, Dr. Zdravkov falls under Art. 6, para. 1, item 46 of the ACCA, according to which “the managers and executive directors of the medical institutions for hospital care, which are financed from the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund and/or from the state or municipal budget“ fall under the Anti-Corruption Act.
In the case of Dr. Zdravkov, Art. 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a conflict of interest as the presence of a private interest that may affect the impartial exercise of powers.
The self-conclusion of an employment contract constitutes an obvious conflict of interest under Art. 58, which prohibits participation in the preparation, discussion and issuance of acts in the event of a private interest. The sanctions include: dismissal from office (Art. 80, para. 1); forfeiture of the remuneration received in favor of the state (Art. 81); administrative fines and professional disqualification.
That is, for the five years in which Zdravkov appointed himself to the second contract, he has damaged the state budget by at least 150 thousand leva.
If the Ministry of Health, as the principal of the Specialized Children's Hospital, pays attention to the director appointed by him, and if the judicial institutions do their job, then the actions of Blagomir Zdravkov, who was appointed Minister of Health, constitute a set of crimes:
Abuse of official position (Art. 282-283 of the Criminal Code): Executive directors are “officials“ within the meaning of Art. 93, para. 1, b. “b“ of the Criminal Code.
Document fraud (Art. 308 of the Criminal Code): The replacement of the contract constitutes the creation of a false document. In the case of extracting property benefits (salaries), the qualified composition is applied with a penalty of up to 6 years in prison.
Document crime under Art. 93, items 5 and 6 of the Criminal Code: “Official document“ is issued in accordance with the established procedure by an official. “False document“ is one that is given the appearance of representing a written statement of another person.
Source: mediamall.info