Google Will Sanction Websites with Aggressive Advertisement

According to official message on their blog, Google will start sanctioning websites which use aggressive ad tactics and deliver too much pop-up add content on mobile devices, effective 2017. This relates mostly to smartphones and tablets that deliver mobile online content towards users of internet services. One of the main reasons declared is that pop-up ads use the whole screen of the device and have to be closed manually by the user to enable using the small screen of the device.

This is good news and I have been waiting for these measurements by Google for a long time. As a person who uses a lot a couple smartphones and tablets I surf online almost all of the time (both during work and in my spare time). Since many websites have recently improved their mobile versions, upon reaching a particular website I’ve been asked on many occasions to download applications, to check advertisements or ad applications, etc. With the interstitial format, before I even open content of the website, or at some time during read, I note a huge add that popped up on the whole screen, and have to remove (close) it first, to be able to open the website and reach the needed content, or to continue reading. There are even websites which constantly ask to download their mobile version, every time I try to open them.

I find couple huge differences between pop-up adds due to their technical specifics on one hand, and the mainstream advertisements on TV and radio, on the other. Let’s split it two ways: Following your personal interest, you have the right of choice to skip the (upcoming) adds you don’t want to see on TV - via simple click on the remote control button; but you don’t have the right of choice and have to look through the add that popped-up on your cell phone, until you find and press the closing button on the add. In the view of public interests, with the mainstream media, there are very serious regulations to establish when exactly advertisement may be screened, so you can expect when they may deliver adds to the public - (for example, between the different TV-shows). On the opposite, can’t predict when a pop-up add will list on your mobile device and will prevent you working with it until you actually close the ad. In other words - you just cannot avoid seeing an ad which you don’t want to see, on your mobile (of course there are versions of “pop-up blocker” software, but not everyone uses it). This may result in watching in all cases the particular advertisement so the advertiser achieves their goal while there is no benefit for you. Also I believe there is a negative influence of watching too many ads, as many of these use manipulative tactics that affect person’s choices and habits in one way or another. At the end of the day, the main goal of the science “Marketing” is to make consumers to spend money and buy things, right?

Therefore I support the upcoming changes planned by Google as I believe it develops the right of choice of users to decide what to watch and what – not while surfing online on their mobile devices. Obeying and protecting their privacy is a supreme goal in my view and all efforts on this matter should be encouraged. As well it is one step close to creating better regulations about online advertising in common.

Protected Green Urban Areas

The Municipal council here in Sofia is the authority to accept major regulation city plan, which regulates the different planning areas within the Sofia Municipality, for the purposes of its management. These are - areas for residential construction, areas for public management (for public needs), areas for green areas, etc. The major (common) regulation plans are compulsory for the public and private land owners and have to be obeyed by them. For example, there are serious building restrictions and prohibitions for urban territories which have got “green space” protection. According to our Laws, when private property has been included unilaterally by the Authorities in the new main regulation plan as green area (to serve the public needs for urban green space), then it should be expropriated (taken) by the municipality, against payment of compensation towards the landowner.

The problem arises with the extraordinary term, stipulated in art.17 of the specific Act for management and building in Sofia Municipality, for expropriation of the green plots (and respectively pay compensation for it to its landowners) – namely 15 (fifteen) years as of the said Act of legislation has entered in force (in 2007). This means that for a period of 15 years, any property owner, whose plot receives “green area status” will not be allowed to exercise in full their ownership rights, i.e. they cannot use without limits their land, because the new “green” legal status has been given to it without possibility for appeal. On the other hand, they do not have any legal instrument to force the Municipality to expropriate the land against paying compensation, because the Law is clear – 15 years deadline for paying compensation. So these particular private landowners are not legally able to claim any damages until this term expires. Not to mention the fact that a land plot with given “urban green space” status is not attractive for any investor due to construction restrictions. There is a city part in Sofia for example, which includes many plots of land totally amounting to tens of thousands square meters, recently listed as “green open space” with a new common plan entered in force 2009. Obviously Sofia Municipality does not have enough money to compensate so many private owners for expropriation of their plots with given “green space” status. Therefore such huge 15-years deadline for expropriation and compensation, in my view has been established to give the Authorities unfair supreme position against the citizens, and it conflicts with the interests of the involved real estate owners.

This is a serious shortcoming of the mentioned local legislation, because on one hand it harms the legal and financial interests of private landowners whose plot’s legal status has been changed to “green urban area”, and on the other hand it details a method implemented in the local legislation, of dominancy of the local official Authorities over the citizens. So if they ask me what do I presume will happen after expiration of the 15-years deadline for expropriation (and paying compensation) of private plots listed as green areas, then I would bet that a new 15-years deadline will be proclaimed by the local lawmakers. I personally support development of green city areas, but its establishment should not be done via tying the hands of the local citizens who own plots with changed unilaterally by the Municipality legal status to “urban green spaces”.

The annual council taxes due to the local municipality

According to the Bulgarian tax legislation, every real estate, situated within the regulated borders of cities, villages and towns, is imposed with annual council property tax. This is obligation created by the Law so it cannot be avoided. Simply said, in theory the local municipality does not care whether you know or do not know how and where to pay your council taxes, because it is a sole obligation of every owner to declare the recently acquired property and then to take annually the necessary steps to find out what is the account of the municipality or to visit a cash desk and pay the taxes. The council tax is a yearly imposed one ,so this means that real estate owners have an obligation for each separate year to pay the tax for the same year. But in many cases the foreigners who wish to buy Bulgarian real estate, fail to inform themselves about the existence of annual council property taxes, and respectively either do not pay these, or, in some situations when related to apartments in holiday complexes, they have the wrong idea that these taxes are covered by the maintenance fee they are paying towards management companies. The common practice is, if property owner hasn't paid their council taxes for more than 4 years, the municipality to take the necessary steps to collect its money compulsory through a public bailiff. On the base of my 10-year practice I can conclude that this applies especially when the property is owned by corporate entity and there are several years of tax debts. The municipality has the right to ask the public bailiff to take some of the properties which the debtor owns on to a public auction for satisfaction of the debt. Taking care of the annual council property taxes, especially, if so much time has passed since the real estate purchase already, is a must, because the local municipalities may act not later than the expiration of the fourth year of the delay.

And I guess here is the place to point an important issue: Every foreign buyer who has purchased a real estate property in Bulgaria since 2005 must do two compulsory registrations : to register with a BULSTAT number within a week after the first purchase ( this is specific registration for supplying you with a tax identification number so you can pay your taxes correctly) and then declaring the property with the BULSTAT number he/she has received at the tax office in the local municipality in two-months deadline after the purchase. There is a fine for failing to complete these registrations,so in case you own a property in Bulgaria but you are not aware with the above registrations and council taxes, then it is important to establish first whether you have a BULSTAT registration number or not (if more than one buyer bought the properties together then all of them must have BULSTAT registration) and whether the properties have been properly declared in the municipality. As you can see one thing is related to the other and usually these registration should be done one by one from the beginning. In my practice I have registered in these authorities on behalf of foreign property buyers many delayed purchases (basically hired by people who want to re-sell, but not legally and technically able because of lack of declaring their purchased properties), so I can make the conclusion that this hasn’t been done previously due to lack of information in the usual case.

The useless procedure of appealing rejections for pre-case burden warrants

Art.390 of the Bulgarian Civil Code entitles claimants, before actually lodging a litigation claim, to apply before the local District court (which is the 1st instance court) for obtaining seizure warrant to secure their future claim (i.e. an order for placing a burden) on chosen assets that are owned by the debtor for the term of the prospective lawsuit. This is “one-party procedure” where the debtor does not participate. The role of this procedure is, first of all, to ensure that the defendant won’t release all his assets after been served with the court claim in order to save them, and secondly, to ensure that in case of positive decision, the claimant/creditor could reach effective satisfaction of their debt.

Once the said application has been submitted in court, usually the judge decides on it on the next day, as the Law pursues speed in such procedures. The goal here is to reach allowance a.s.a.p., so the claimant can get the issued warrant and via the local bailiff to place the burden on the chosen debtor’s assets to secure their prospective claim. In other words, the quick seizure of assets is pursued here. But sometimes, the application could be rejected directly by the court – usually if the judge considers that the debt is not yet due; or if there are no strong evidences to support the application, or court tax has not been paid, or there is lack of authorization towards the person who has signed the application, etc. This denial is direct - with no possibility of giving instructions towards the applicant to repair/improve their claim. In case of refusal for issuing preliminary seizure warrant, One of the available options for the claimant is to appeal it at the higher, 2nd instance court. But in this case the Civil Code obliges the court to involve also figure of the debtor in the appeal procedure, where it becomes “two-sided court process” and the debtor can dispute the application itself. Which given right to the debtor, in a procedure which initially starts and ends without their participation, is non-beneficial for the claimant/creditor, because once the debtor has been informed officially by the court that someone wants their assets frozen for prospective lawsuit against them, then the debtor can easily hide or transfer to third parties their own assets to prevent the actual success of such prospective legal actions. This danger puts the claimant in harmful situation and questions the effectiveness of the whole litigation process.

Alternatively, in this one-sided procedure, in case of rejection by court to allow pre-case burdening of assets, the claimant may choose not to appeal it at all, but to follow the motives of the judge and to repair or remove any shortcomings or defects in their denied application in order to submit it again. But in this case, the claimant should wait first to be notified by the court for the refusal (which technically may take several days for serving if you don’t check on desk at court the file). And then to wait for expiration of further 7-days - the deadline for appeal - before the issued rejection enters in force, so then the claimant could prepare and lodge their application again, hoping that the same or another judge within the same court may approve their application this time. Unfortunately there is no option for the claimant, once found out that there is a denial by court to allow pre-case burden of assets, to lodge new (improved) application a.s.a.p., although they chase quick protection of their rights against the debtor. Even if they lodge it during this deadline, the court will reject their new application with the sole motive, that there is still pending application, the decision on it has not yet entered in force. This procedural prohibition for the claimant is non-logical, because in such procedures speed is vital; waiting 10 more days to lodge new application for seizure is not beneficial in any way for the claimant who seeks immediate protection of their rights.

Therefore a change should be made in the Bulgarian Civil Code, to avoid involving the defendant in appeals against refusals for issuing pre-case seizure warrants, and also to entitle claimants who have been served with court rejections, to submit new applications straight away and without having to wait a week or more before they will be entitled to do it again.

Illegal usage of intellecrual property downloaded from Facebook and other social media.

Many people use to keep personal profiles in online social networking websites like Facebook or Twitter, where members publish statuses, share statements and upload photos or videos. Some people prefer to manage the security of their profiles in order to keep their privacy on higher level; others, who are famous in the society (artists, sport players, politicians, etc.), usually share personally made photos or videos with the public (i.e. with their fans around Globe). For example, according to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities on the Facebook website, the particular member of this social networking website declares and gives to Facebook non-exclusively, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license over the published Intellectual Property content (uploaded personal photos and videos, mostly).

I think Facebook is a wonderful method to connect you with other people; I like it and admire its creator. In my view there is nothing wrong to share photos and/or videos with the public, and people obviously don’t have problem with that, since they manage on their own the privacy on their own Facebook profiles and it is up to them to decide what to share with others and what not. I would like just to mention some particular situations where Intellectual property rights (author’s rights for example) of Facebook users may be harmed by third parties. According to the Bulgarian Intellectual property Law and the stipulated rules within the Author’s Right Act, such damage may occur in situations where third parties – usually TV media, newspaper publishers, other websites, etc. – download personal photos or videos from the profile of particular Facebook user, and then use this Intellectual property content for business reasons in their own products (newspapers, television reports, news articles on other websites, etc.) for their own profit and benefit. This happens without the knowledge and/or the consent by the owner of the said intellectual property content (personally photographed photos) and without paying remuneration to their author. Usually the placed argument by these third parties who use for trade purposes (i.e. not for personal use) such materials is that, since it has been already shared by the concrete Facebook user, then it should be considered as “public content” and would not represent a protected Intellectual material.

Well, in my personal view, such understanding is incorrect according to our legal system and our civil courts, and I would not buy such argument, because once published by users on Facebook (where the said non-exclusive license is granted to this social network), any personal photos and videos do not become automatically a property of any third parties for their free usage on other (business) platforms. Any third parties obviously do not have binding agreement with the social networking website, neither with the individual user who shared personal photos or videos, for using it for their business purposes. The license, initially given by the user to Facebook, has not then been passed to these third parties at all. Therefore they are not allowed to use this Intellectual property content, claiming that it already has become “public” once shared in Facebook. In other words, newspapers for example, are not legally allowed to make their own profit via posting personal photos that are downloaded from a Facebook’s profile, where they have not awarded the person who holds the author’s rights on this content.

This is why, according to the Bulgarian Intellectual Property Law, the third party - user of personal content shared in social networks like Facebook for their own needs, benefit and profit, is liable and responsible towards the author of this personal content, protected by the Law, for pecuniary damages caused by its usage for trading purposes outside Facebook without permission and without remuneration. Punitive (monetary) damages are subject of proof in court. Non-pecuniary damages are claimable too, according to our Laws; and these depend of the particular case.

Non-pecuniary damages and torts

The local civil law entitles people who suffer from tort, to pursue financial compensation of the damages that occurred from the wrongful act. Tort claims are recognized by the Bulgarian Law and these are common instrument for protection after car accidents, labor accidents, insults or defamations, etc. In cases the tort results in the death of a person, his or her heirs can pursue in court via lodging tort claim, a compensation for the non-pecuniary damages (usually in the form of sadness, depression, stress or other negative feelings, etc.) caused by the accidental death of their ancestor as a result of the wrongful act.

The local legislation does not specify strictly the list of heir (i.e. relatives) who are legally entitled to pursue non-pecuniary damages in court directly against the wrongdoer, and in some cases - after car accident, for example, directly against the insurance company when the driver had third party liability insurance. Therefore the Supreme Court has issued couple Decrees, dated 1961, 1969 and 1984, in which strictly indicates namely who could lodge tort claim for the damages rising from the death of their ancestor – these are the people who had parental or marital relation with the deceased. This circle, designed by the Supreme Court includes the figures of the children of the deceased person (also any adopted ones), or their parents, or their spouse (incl. the partner who lived with them on even if not married). Basically this scheme implements the circle of direct heirs, recognized within a probate procedure.

There are dough, certain close relatives of the deceased who, although not prohibited by the Law, are excluded from the list in the abovementioned Supreme Court Decrees, and respectively are not entitled to lodge tort claim for the non-pecuniary damages, caused by the wrongful act that led to the death of their relative. These relatives are - brothers or sisters of the deceased, or their grandchildren or grandfathers. The reason detailed by the Supreme Court to exclude these close relations from the circle of claimants, is namely because they are not considered as “the closest ones” to the deceased. Something I can’t agree with.

First of all, the Bulgarian culture, among with the particularity of owning own home, includes also the strong traditional relations that rise within Bulgarian family. Local families grow big and Bulgarians usually use to keep good relations with their grandparents and grandchildren, with their brothers and sisters, with their cousins, etc. And often use to live together “under one roof” in order to help each other during the difficult times for our country per the last several centuries. These strong family relations mean that huge moral damages could occur if a brother or sister, or grandparent dies after wrongful act (for example after a car accident). Here you can spend a lot of time during your life with your grandparents, or with your brother in the same house. Secondly, even not recognized by the Inheritance Law as direct heirs, these close relatives are not totally excluded by the Law – they just substitute the descendant and the ascendant heirs. In additional, brothers or sisters may also suffer really badly from the accidental loss of their beloved brother or sister, grandfather or grandmother. This mental suffering, these negative personal feelings by the heir represent a non-pecuniary damage and its compensation should be allowed by the court, as there is no direct prohibition in the legislation for brothers and sisters, grandparents or grandchildren to lodge this type of tort claims. Denying the right of these close relatives to pursue compensation for moral damages just because the Supreme Court proclaimed fifty years ago that they should be kept out of the circle of the relatives to pursue pecuniary damages after tort, in my view discriminates them and their personal feelings, and unfortunately does not benefit justice.

Parental rights – who has majority?

Part of the practice of the local civil courts involves hearing of cases for execution of parental rights, following art.127 of the Family Code – usually after divorce (and together with the separation lawsuit). Nowadays this circumstance already changes, since more and more local couples live together and have children without marriage. Usually execution of the majority of the parental rights – namely where the child should live and which parent should take daily care of the child, depend of the interests of the child in bulk: the parental capacities, the giving of care and efforts towards the child, the moral skills of the parents, social environment, the age of the child, the connection between the kid and the parent, who can provide financial support to the child and meet their daily needs, which parent can provide home to the child and their own room for playing and studying, etc. Children over 10 years of age could be asked in court for their own wish which parent they would choose to live with, as well. As result of these lawsuits, usually one of the parents receives exercising of the parental rights in full (the right of teaching behavior, giving care and exercising control over the child), and the other parent is obliged to provide monthly financial support and receives particular time of personal contacts with the child.

In my practice I have met several important issues when the court decides about the parental rights:
1) The first issue rises with one archaic provision by the Supreme Court – implemented in Decree № 1 dated 12.XI.1974 on civil lawsuit № 3/74, The Supreme Court Plenum, while Bulgaria has been still under the communist social and legal order. This Decree points to the gender of the child when deciding on the parental rights, and namely states that in cases where the child is a female (girl), the mother should receive majority in exercising the most of the parental rights. Where the child is a male (boy), the mother and the father are equally qualified to exercise it so the rest of the circumstances should be examined.

2) The second issue in the above detailed Decree of the Supreme Court Plenum relates to the age of the child - where it proclaims that babies and small age children should live with their mother, not with their father.

I can’t agree with these two archaic provisions by the court, because:
- In the modern world, namely in 21st Century, there are countries where gay marriage has been allowed; so as these modern couples are still normal human beings, I don’t see how local courts could decide if such case rises.

- Secondly, there are many cases where the father simply can provide absolutely better place for living, daily care and education of the child. I had this lawsuit for deciding on the parental rights over 7-years old boy, where the father had permanent job, could also rely on the support of his own parents who lived the next door, had his own apartment with decorated and equipped individual room for the child, social and friendship connection of the child there were present in his place of residence too. On the other hand, the mother never had any serious job for the last 15 years, she lived with the child 450 miles away from the father in 1-bedroom flat, taken on rent, her own parents lived 50 miles away in another village so they could help her a lot, etc. And although these worrying facts within the presented report by the Social care workers, still two instance courts in Varna have decided that the boy should live with their mother. This was totally non-understandable for me.

3) Other very important issue I have met in my practice is there is no legal rule in our legislation about maximum allowed distance of residence between the two parents in relation to exercising the parental rights. In other words, the court decides even if the child will have to live in the other end of the country, or abroad. In addition, the court very rarely takes in practice under consideration the distance between parents after separation. For example, in the above detailed lawsuit, there was 450 miles distance between both parents’ residences, with no direct flights between them - so whoever takes the child in their own home, it would be extremely difficult and costly for the other parent to perform the usual parental contact with their child.

In my personal opinion, such distanced separation between ex-spouses is extremely dangerous for the interests of the child. I believe there should be legal rule avoiding taking decision at all about the parental rights in cases where the distance between the two parents ‘place of residence would be more than 60 miles – in order to ensure that there will be conditions ensuring that the child will spend enough time with both parents, because every child needs their father just that much as they need their mother. At the end of the day the interests of the child should be considered as more important than the interests of only one of their parents to take the child far away.