Hare Majesteit de Koningin p/a Kabinet der Koningin Postbus 20016 2500 EA Den Haag Korte Vijverberg 3 2513

AB Den Haag tel.: 070 330 88 88 fax: 0031 (0)70 363 93 07 c.c. Plv. Procureur-Generaal mr. C. L. de Vries Lentsch-Kostense Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Kazernestraat 52, 2514 CV DEN HAAG Postbus 20303, 2500 EH DEN HAAG Telefoonnummer: 0031 (070) 361 1311 Fax: (070) 346 9969

Application
Pursuant of Article 1, Article 3, Article 5, Article 6,Article 7, Article 8, Article 13, Article 17 and Article 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On the subject of:

a) Complaint registered in the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden under - Kenmerk: NO 12 13/SvdO/lg.

b) Complaint registered in the Kabinet der Koningin under REK 11.002323.

Kenmerk:

Page 1 of 38

I.
A.
1. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

The

Applicants

The First Applicant

Surname: Private Foundation 2. First Name: Evmolpia

Sex: Foundation Nationality: registered in Sint Maarten Private Foundation

Occupation:

Date and place of birth: Permanent address Tel no: fax:

Present address: same (as the permanent address) Name of representative: Yordan Stoilov Busarov

12. Occupation of representative: Board-member and Legal representative of Evmolpia Private Foundation 13. 14. Address of representative Tel no: Fax no:

B.
15. 17. 18. 19. 20.

The Second Applicant

Surname: Busarov Sex: male Nationality: Occupation: Bulgarian nationality Managing Director 16. First Name(s): Yordan Stoilov

Date and place of birth:

Page 2 of 38

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Permanent address: Tel no: Present address: Fax no. same (as the permanent address) None

Name of representative:

Occupation of representative: None Address of representative: None Tel no: None Fax no: None

II. KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLAND is referred below as The High Contracting Party.

Your Majesty! Hereby The Applicants inform Your Majesty as follows:

III.
Facts 1. The First Applicant (Evmolpia Private Foundation) is registered and functioning in Sint Maarten (Annex 1). Before 10.10.2010 Sint Maarten was part of the Netherlands Antilles. With effect from 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles ceased to exist as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. From that date onwards, the Kingdom consists of four parts: The Netherlands, Aruba, Curaao and Sint Maarten. 2. The second Applicant (Yordan S. Busarov) is a Bulgarian citizen, living and working in Sint Maarten (since year 2 000) (Annex 2). Both Applicants are referred below as The Applicants. 3. The Applicants are submitting that The Kingdom of the Netherlands is in breach of its obligations under Article 1, Article 3, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Page 3 of 38

Statement of the Facts

Article 8, Article 13, Article 17 and Article 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

4. On 05.July.2007 and on Feb.26.2009 the ex-Managing Director of the First Applicant) signed and registered false/untrue documents. First and Second Mortgage deed with total amount of USD 1 670 000.00(one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars) was attached to the property of the First Applicant. 5. In July. 2009 The Second Applicant released the ex- Managing Director of The First Applicant, and became the Managing Director of The First Applicant. 6. Since November.2009 The Applicants started numerous Preliminary relief proceedings, Proceedings on the merits and Appeal proceedings (KG 170/2009,KG 57/2010, KG 76/2010,KG 87/2010, AR19/2010,AR 184/2010, KG 57/10 en 87/10151/10 en 178/10, KG 76/10- H23/11), aiming to establish the truth and annul the untrue/false Mortgage Deeds (with total amount of USD 1 670 000.00), attached to a Private Foundation (The First Applicant), without Bank account. 7. Since Dec.04.2009 - up to Dec.03.2012 the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba(Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curacao,Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba) refuse to render Proper Administration of Justice, and in fact denied to The Applicants access to Court. The Applicants receive from the The High Contracting Party unsigned, unregistered and unstamped pieces of paper without any legal effect (Annex 4), in breach of Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Article 45, 46, 48b, 48c, 49, 50, 52, 64, 67 and 68 (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering/RvAfdeling 4. Het algemeen register, het proces-verbaal van de zitting en vonnissen in het algemeen Artikel 45, 46, 48b, 48c, 49, 50, 52, 64, 67 and 68 Rv) Annex 5. 8. The Applicants submitted numerous Petitions/Requests for Proper Administration of Justice. All Request were disregarded (Annex 6). In fact, the Judge(s) handling the Proceedings refuse to decide, in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure Articel 48c (Wetboek- Articel 48c Rv) stating:

The judge may not refuse to decide.

9. The receipts for the paid Court fees are the only real evidences, undoubtedly proving that those Court Cases ever existed (Annex 7). 10. In the beginning of March 2010 (along with the Court Cases) The Applicants filed Complaint to the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Page 4 of 38

Kandidaat-Notarissen in de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba), against the illegal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha, as required by the Law on the notarial profession, Chapter VI. Supervision (Wet op het notarisambt Hoofdstuk VI. Toezicht). The Complaint was registered on March.23.2010. (Annex 8). 11. Since March23.2010 up to date Dec.03.2012 The Applicants informed dozens of times the President of the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries (President van de Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen) Mrs.Lisbeth Hoefdraad of the illegal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha, and each time filed via (FedEx, e-mails and faxes) dozens of new compelling evidence (Annex 9). Since March.23.2010 - up to date Dec.03.2012 the Complaint is not handled, in breach of the Law on the notarial profession, Chapter VI. Supervision; Article 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 65a (Wet op het notarisambt Hoofdstuk VI. Toezicht; Artikel 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 65a WN of Wna) Annex 10. 12. On Nov.25.2011 The Applicants filed Complaint to the Office of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix (Kabinet der Koningin) against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Vice President of the Joint Court of Justice Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation! On December. 13.2011 (on behalf of The Director of The Queens Office) Mw.mr.M.Beuker forwarded the Complaint to the Gouveneur van Sint Maarten! On Feb.13.2012.the Director of the Cabinet of the Governor of Sint Maarten Mr. Rob(J.H.)Bats forwarded the Complaint (Annex 11) to the President of the Board the Joint Court of Justice, as required by Rijksbesluit rechtspositie Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie Artikel 53(1). 13. Since Feb.13.2012 - up to date Dec.03.2012. the Complaint is disregarded/not handled in breach of Rijksbesluit rechtspositie Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie Artikel 53 (2,3 en 4), Artikel 54, Artikel 55, Artikel 56, Artickel57, Artikel 58, Artikel 59, Artikel 60, Artikel 61, Artikel 62, Artikel 63 en Artikel 64) Annex 12 . 14. Since March.30.2011 The Applicants numerous times (on March.30.2011, April.18.2011, October. 07. 2011, on Feb.06.2012 March.05.2012 and June.04.2012) filed Complaints to the Attorney-Generals Office of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation, as required by Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie (Wet RO) Artikel 13 a! Since March.30.2012 - up to date Dec.03.2012. the Complaints are disregarded/not handled (Annex 13) in breach of Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie Artikel 13 b, Artikel 13 c, Artikel 13 d, Artikel 13 e, Artikel 13 f, Artikel g, and Artikel 13 h Wet RO) Annex 14! 15. After the refusal of the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries (Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen ) to handle the Complaint, the well-organized group of people specialized in Mortgage Page 5 of 38

Fraud, Money Laundering and Tax Evasion, auctioned the property of The First Applicant four times (Annex 15), in breach of all applicable Laws, as the Civil Code of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba Book 3 Articel 268 paragraph 4 and 5 (Het Nederlands Antilliaans en Arubaans Burgerlijk Wetboek 3:268 BW lid. 4 en 5 ). I quote:

4. The execution (foreclosure) referred to paragraph 1 to 3, inclusive, shall be carried out according to the formalities prescribed for that purpose in the Code of Civil Procedure! 5. The hypothecary creditor may not have recourse against the secured property in any other manner. Any stipulation to this effect is null!
16. state: The Code of Civil Procedure Article 504a (Wetboek Artikel 504a Rv)

Article 504a 1. The attachment can only be levied for a claim of which the monetary amount is determinable. 2. As long as the claim has not been settled, executorial sale cannot take place.
17. The Code of Civil Procedure Title 5. Calculation procedure(Wetboek van Burgerlijke RechtsvorderingTitel 5. Rekenprocedure) state: Please see Annex 16. 18. The Applicants would like to establish the fact that, the First Applicant does not have and never had a Bank account, and it is impossible to receive USD 1 670 000.00 (one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars)! 19. On 28.Jan. 2011 one person (part of this unlawful organization) started KG 10/2011 with unconstitutional request! This person submitted to the Court a untrue document (Annex 17 -PRODUCTIE 5) and requested the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten to order to The Applicants to sign this false document, or penalty USD 10 000.00 PER DAY! The Court Case KG 10/2011 was handled from the Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks! 20. On Feb.25.2011 The Applicants received provisionally enforceable verdict #16 (vonnis- Annex 18)! In this judgment the Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks ordered to The Applicants to sign (against their will and conscience) untrue document (Annex 17 -PRODUCTIE 5) and forbid to The Applicants any further attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice, under a threat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars)!

Page 6 of 38

21. The Applicants are submitting that in the Dutch Judiciary does not exist Article in any Law Book (Wetboek), allowing Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks to order to The Applicants to sign against their will and conscience untrue document, or to forbid to The Applicants further attempts to receive Justice, under a threat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars)! The Applicants believe that, any reasonable person in any Constitutional Country/Kingdom would declare such a Judgment unacceptable, insulting, humiliating and degrading! The Applicants are submitting that they are victim of acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of severe intimidation. 22. The Applicants would like to establish the fact that, from all unsigned, unregistered and/or unstamped Judgments/pieces of paper (named vonnis) without any legal effect, only the unconstitutional Judgment/vonnis was signed, registered and stamped(Annex 18), only this time the signature of judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks was forged! 23. After the humiliating and degrading Judgment/vonnis to KG 10/2011(Annex18), The Applicants submitted request for disqualification of Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks in the Proceedings on the merits (Bodemprocedure) AR 19/2010. In the hearing to the request for disqualification (on May.06.2011) The Applicants received personally from Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks a document with his original signature (Annex 19). Please compare the signatures on Annex 18 and Annex 19. Even for an unarmed eye it is obvious that the signature on the provisionally enforceable Judgment (Annex 18) is poor imitation of the original signature of Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks Annex 19! 24. Someone from the Court House of Sint Maarten decided that the penalty of a USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars) is not sufficient threat, and on March.04.2011 The Applicants were summoned with different/forged vonnis (Annex 20)! In this forged vonnis the penalty was increased up-to USD 1 000 000.00(One Million US Dollars)! The Applicants informed the Prosecutors Office of Sint Maarten (Openbaare Ministerie and requested investigation! The request was ignored! After the threat was unsuccessful and did not have the desired effect, on May.06.2012 the forged Judgment/vonnis(Annex 20) became negligence (Annex 21)! 25. Ignoring the pending Proceedings on the merits (Bodemprocedure AR 184/2010 and AR 112/2011) with a feeling of impunity (under the protection of President and Vice-President of the Joint Court of Justice- Mrs. Lisbeth Hoefdraad and judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen) on Jan.11.2012 the well-organized group of people (specialized in Mortgage Fraud, Money Laundering and Tax Evasion) Page 7 of 38

transferred to one of them five apartments-property of The First Applicant - with current value USD 1 305 000.00 (one million three hundred and five thousand US Dollars-Annex 22) , for USD 550 000.00(five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) Annex 23 . 26. Up to Jan.10.2011 the total amount of the untrue Mortgage Deeds (attached to a Private Foundation without Bank Account/The First Applicant) was USD 1 670 000.00 (one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars) Annex 24. On Jan.11.2012 the five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) paid for the five apartments disappeared, and the total amount of the untrue Mortgage Deeds was illegally increased with USD 835 000.00 (eight hundred thirty five thousand US Dollars) penalty, - from USD 1 670 000.00 up-to USD 2 505 000.00(two million five hundred and five thousand US Dollars) Annex 25. 27. In fact, the fraudulent Notary F.E.Gijsbertha (part of the unlawful organization) transferred five apartments (property of The First Applicant) and added USD 835 000.00(eight hundred thirty five thousand US Dollars) interest/penalty. Please compare the total amounts in Annex 24 and Annex 25. 28. Three weeks later (on Jan.31.2012) one person (part of this illegal organization) started Court Case EJ 21/2012 (Annex 26) and requested the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten to announce The Applicants in Bankruptcy! The Hearing was handled from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen! 29. After the refusal of The Applicants to sign the untrue document, based on the unconstitutional Judgment/grosse (Annex 18), on August.23.2012, they were summoned with a claim of USD 207 500.00(two hundred and seven thousand and five hundred US Dollars). This claim was used (Annex 27 - Productie 9) in Court Case EJ 21/2012. 30. On Feb.25.2012. The First Applicant received unsigned, unregistered and unstamped pieces of paper, named vonnis to EJ 21/2012 (Annex 28)! Along with those pieces of paper, The Second Applicant received a second set of unsigned, unregistered and unstamped pieces of paper (without any legal effect),named vonnis to EJ 20/2012 (Annex 29)! It is a fact that, The Second Applicant(Y.Busarov) was not summoned, was not present and is not a party in Court Case EJ 20/2012, and that makes the vonnis to EJ 20/2012 (Annex 29) one forged document! 31. Based on unsigned, not-stamped unregistered and untrue/forged document (vonnis to EJ 20/2012 - Annex 29), on April.13.2012 The Second Applicant was arrested in the Court House of Sent Maarten, and (after ten minutes in the Police Page 8 of 38

Station) send directly to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten (Annex 30)! The Second Applicant requested copy of the Court order and the arrest warrant from the Police and the Prosecutors Office Sint Maarten! The request was denied! The Prosecutors Office Sint Maarten informed The Second Applicant that this is not criminal Case, and they have nothing to do with the arrest and the imprisonment of The Second Applicant! The Prosecutors Office also informed The Second Applicant that, the arrest was ordered from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and The Second Applicant should contact Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen for more information! 32. On April.16.2012. The Second Applicant was forced to be present on a hearing in the Court House of Sint Maarten! The Judge handling the hearing was Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen. In this Hearing The Second Applicant was requested to cooperate(in fact to legalize the forged and untrue documents, the disappearance of USD 550 000.00, the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00 and the illegal transfer of five apartments - property of The First Applicant). Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen informed The Second Applicant that, if The Second Applicant do not cooperate, he will order another 30 days imprisonment, after that another 30 days, and another 30 daysetc! The Second Applicant clear explain that, The First Applicant/Evmolpia PF do not have a Bank Account, cannot receive USD 1 670 000.00 (one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars) AND CAN NOT BE BANKRUPT! The Second Applicant also clear explain that, he was not summoned, was not present and is not a party in Court Case EJ 20/2012, and that makes the vonnis to EJ 20/2012 (Annex 29) a untrue/forged document. Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen deliberately disregarded the material facts and send The Second Applicant back to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten. 33. On the next Day (April.17.2012) The Second Applicant received (in Prison) four sets of documents: Judgment/Beschikking (dated 28.March.2012 ordering the detention of The Second Applicant for 30 days), two sets of documents named minutes (process-verbaal), and a letter from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen to the Prosecutors Office. (Annex 31). 34. One of those documents (named minutes/process-verbaal) was signed from the Police Spokesman Mr. R.V.Hensen. The other document (named minutes/process-verbaal) was signed from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen and Court recorder Mrs. J.J.Evers-Maria. Those documents are not registered (do not have numbers). The Judgment (dated 28.March.2012) ordering the detention of The Second Applicant for 30 days is also not registered or stamped. The unregistered Judgment (dated 28.March.2012) which is ordering the detention of The Second Applicant for 30 days is REFERRING TO A NOT-EXISTING Court Case (EJ 20/2012Annex 29).

Page 9 of 38

35. On April.26.2012.The Second Applicant was forced once again to a hearing in connection with a not-existing Court Case (EJ 20/2012)! Once again Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen requested The Second Applicant to cooperate(legalize the illegal transfer of five apartments disappearance of USD 550 000.00, the illegally increased Mortgage amount -with USD 835 000.00- and the usurpation of the property of The First Applicant). Once again The Second Applicant clear explained that, The First Applicant does not have a Bank Account, cannot receive AND CAN NOT BE BANKRUPT! After the unlawful imprisonment did not have the desired effect, Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen on his own initiative acknowledged the existence of Article 5 of ECHR, and ordered the release of The Second Applicant (Annex 32). 36. The Second Applicant would like to establish the fact that, there were two hearings. The First hearing was on April.16.2012, and the Second Hearing was on April.26.2012. a) On April.17.2012 The Second Applicant received from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen only the unregistered minutes (process-verbaal) Annex 31. b) On April.27.2012 The Second Applicant received from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen only unregistered Judgment/Beshikking Annex32. 37. With Court order number (none), referring to a not-existing Court Case (EJ 20/2012-Annex 29) The Second Applicant was released on July.27.2012 - under house-arrest Annex 32! In this Judgment is stating:

DECISION The examining judge in bankruptcy: Suspends the order of remand in custody ordered against Yordan Stoilov Busarov pursuant to article 85 Fb effective Friday April 27th 2012, 12.00 hours. Thereby sets the following conditions: a. that the suspect complies with the provisions in article 86 Fb, namely that he may not leave his residence without permission of the examining judge;
38. From April.27.2012 up to date- Dec.03.2012 The Second Applicant is under House-arrest (for over seven months). The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of severe intimidation.

Page 10 of 38

39. The Applicants are submitting that the great power of the Police, the Prosecutors Office of Sint Maarten and Joint Court of Justice were illegally redirected in violation of the Domestic and Internationals Laws. Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten was used as instrument for direct coercion and severe intimidation. The release form (Annex 33) it is not registered (do not have a number)! The Second Applicant was sent to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten, for his attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice. In fact the illegal imprisonment and the illegal house-arrest are acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of severe intimidation, and are aiming to legalize false/untrue documents, the illegal transfer of five apartments-property of The First Applicant, and the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00! (Eight hundred thirty five thousand US Dollars). 40. Aiming to redress the issue, on June.26.2012, in the Docket Session to the pending Proceedings on the merits AR 112/11 and AR 21/2012 The Applicants filed a request for disqualification against Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen Annex 34. The Petition was ignored. 41. On the next regular Docket session (on 17 July 2012) The Applicants received two - Docket Decisions/Rolbeschikkings (Annex 35)! In each Docket Decision is stating that the trustees (Mr.Le Pool and Mr. H. Seferina) are refusing to take over the proceedings (De curatoren in het faillissement eiseres hebben verklaard hiet geding niet te zullen overnemen)! 42. According to the unregistered Court order (Beschikking) dated 28.March.2012 (Annex 31), The Second Applicant was arrested after/due the request of the trustees Mr.Le Pool and Mr. H. Seferina. On July.17.2012. Mr.Le Pool and Mr. H. Seferina refused to take over the proceedings??? Annex 35? 43. For The Applicants are clear the reasons, leading to the trusteesMr.Le Pool and Mr. H. Seferina to refuse to take over the proceedings. a) Evmolpia Private Foundation/The First Applicant does not have and never had Bank account and it is impossible to receive USD 1 670 000.00 (one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars) Annex 24. b) Yordan Stoilov Bussarov/The Second Applicant was not summoned, was not present and is not a party of Court Case EJ 20/2012 Annex 29.

Page 11 of 38

44. The Applicants are submitting that the reason leading to the illegal imprisonment of the Second Applicant and the continuing illegal lifetime Housearrest are as follow:. a) The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of severe intimidation, aiming to legalize false/untrue documents, the illegal transfer of five apartments-property of The First Applicant, and the illegally increased (with eight hundred and thirty five thousand US Dollars) Mortgage amount! 45. On the Docket Session (on 17.July.2012) The Applicants filed second request for disqualification against Judge(s) Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen and included A.N.G.N.E. Mijnssen, Mr. D.M.Thierry, Mr. C.T.M.Luijks and Mrs.M.Keppels Annex 36. 46. On Aug.10.2012 The Applicants were informed (Annex 37), that the hearing in connection with the request for disqualification of the Judge(s) Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, A.N.G.N.E. Mijnssen, Mr. D.M.Thierry, Mr. C.T.M.Luijks and Mrs.M.Keppels will be on Aug.31.2012. 47. On Aug.28.2012. The Applicants received via e-mail Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) from Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen Annex 38. 48. In this Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen is stating:

After advice received for that purpose from the bankruptcy trustees, in my capacity of delegated judge in the bankruptcy of Evmolpia and Mr. Busarov, by decree of March 28th 2012 (exhibit 2) I ordered that Mr. Busarov be taken into custody. On Friday April 13th 2012 Mr. Busarov was remanded in custody. On Monday April 16th 2012 the scrutiny took place pursuant to article 5 European Convention Human Rights before me (exhibit 3). By decree of April 26th 2012 I suspended the imprisonment (exhibit 4).
49. In fact, Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen declared the following: a) On March.28.2012 (Annex 31) article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen ordered the imprisonment of The Second Applicant.

Page 12 of 38

b) On April.16.2012 article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was also not applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen ordered (Annex 31) the unlawful imprisonment of The Second Applicant to continue. c) In the second hearing- on April.26.2012 Article 5 of the European Convention Human on Rights was applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen suspended the imprisonment of the Second Applicant, and in breach of all Domestic and International Laws ordered his illegal lifetime House-arrest (Annex 32).

50. In this Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen also stating:

A request as referred to here in my memory I have never received and I am also not familiar with a concrete (case and date of the verbal hearing) request to the clerk of the Court of First Instance here. If a concrete request as referred to here is made then of course minutes are provided.
51. The Applicants are submitting that this is untrue statement. The Applicants submitted numerous petitions, requesting Proper Administration of Justice (as signed Judgments, minutes of the hearings and final judgments) Annex 6. All requests were disregarded and unanswered. 52. In this Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen is also stating:

Further Evmolpia and Bursarov complain that they do not receive signed judgments. On several occasions Mr. Busarov has been explained that at the Court of First Instance on Sint Maarten judgments are only pronounced which have been signed by the judge and the clerk of the court. This copy signed by the judge and the clerk of the court remains in the file, among other things in connection with a possible request for issuance of a bailiffs copy. Parties receive a copy of the judgment whereby the clerk of the court, before copying, tapes-up the signature of the judge and the clerk of the court.
53. The Applicants are submitting that this is another untrue statement.

Page 13 of 38

a) In the previous statement Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen declares that:

I have never received and I am also not familiar with a concrete (case and date of the verbal hearing) request to the clerk of the Court of First Instance here. If a concrete request as referred to here is made then of course minutes are provided.
b)

In the following statement Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen declares that:

On several occasions Mr. Busarov has been explained that at the Court of First Instance on Sint Maarten judgments are only pronounced which have been signed by the judge and the clerk of the court..etc.
In fact, Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen admits/declares that, in several occasions The Applicants requested Proper Administration, the requests were denied and his previous statement is not true.
c) Plus all and above, The Applicants were summoned with a numerous

unsigned provisionally enforceable verdict/vonnis #16 to Preliminary relief proceedings # 10/2011(KG 10/2011) - bailiffs copies In name Der Koningin (Annex 39), contrary to the statement of Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen:

This copy signed by the judge and the clerk of the court remains in the file, among other things in connection with a possible request for issuance of a bailiffs copy.
54. In this Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen is also stating:

Furthermore I request Your Court of Appeal, if the request for challenge is rejected, to give application to the provisions in article 34, paragraph 4, Code of Civil Procedure. For the latter I suffice with a reference to the decisions to be submitted hereby as exhibits 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d of your Court of Appeal dated April 18th 2011, May 13th 2011, May 24th 2011 and May 31st 2011, all relating to requests for challenge of Evmolpia and Mr. Busarov.
55. It is true that in the past The Applicants have been challenging Judge(s) from the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten. It is also true that, all Judgments are not registered, and/or not signed or stamped Annex 40. It is also true, that the hearings to the requests for disqualification of a Judge from the Court of First Page 14 of 38

Instance of Sint Maarten were handled by Panel of Judges from the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten, in breach of The Code of Civil Procedure Article 34 paragraph 1(Wetboek Artikel 34(1) Rv) stating:

Article 34 1) The request for challenge is dealt with as soon as possible at the hearing by a chamber of the Joint Court of Justice in which the judge of whom the challenge is requested does not serve.
Or in Dutch:

Artikel 34 1) Het verzoek tot wraking wordt zo spoedig mogelijk ter terechtzitting behandeld door een kamer van het Hof van Justitie waarin de rechter van wie wraking is verzocht, geen zitting heeft.
56. For example, the first request for disqualification of Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen (Senior Judge in the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten) was handled from Judge Mr.D.M.Thierry, Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks and Judge Mrs. M.Keppels (Junior Judges in the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten) Annex 40, in breach of The Code of Civil Procedure Article 34 paragraph 1(Wetboek Artikel 34(1) Rv)! 57. On Aug.29.2012 The Applicants submitted Statement of Replay Annex 41. In this Statement of Replay The Applicants apologized to Judge Mr. A.N.G.N.E. Mijnssen, Judge Mr. D.M.Thierry, Judge Mr. C.T.M.Luijks Judge Mrs. M.Keppels and withdrew the requests for disqualification against them. The request for disqualification of Judge Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen remained. 58. On Aug.31.2012 was the hearing to AR 112/11 and AR 21/12-HAR 42/12. In this Court hearing The Applicants find out that along with the Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT), Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen also submitted nine Exhibits (Produktie # 1,2,3,4,5,5a,5b,5c, and 5d). The Applicants protested and informed the Panel of Judges (Mr.E.M.van der Bunt, Mr. H.J. van Kooten and Mr. S. Verheijen) that, The Applicants received from Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen (via email) only the unsigned Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT). The Chairman of the Panel of Judges stated that, The Applicants should be aware of existence of those Exhibits and ten minutes should be sufficient time for The Applicants to examine the Exhibits. 59. The Applicants received copy of those Exhibits from the Chairman of the Panel of Judges handling the request for disqualification. The Court hearing was Page 15 of 38

suspended for ten minutes, allowing the Applicants to examine the Exhibits. After ten minutes the Court hearing continued as normal. Any reasonable person will consider that ten minutes are not sufficient time and it is not possible for anyone to examine those nine exhibits! 60. The Code of Civil Procedure Article 32 paragraph 4 (Wetboek Artikel 32 lid4) stating:

Article 32 4. A following request for challenge of the same judge is not dealt with, unless facts or circumstances are presented which only after the earlier request have become aware to the petitioner.
Or in Dutch:

Artikel 32 4. Een volgend verzoek tot wraking van dezelfde rechter wordt niet in behandeling genomen, tenzij feiten of omstandigheden worden voorgedragen die pas na het eerdere verzoek aan de verzoeker bekend zijn geworden.
61. The Applicants are submitting that, in breach of Code of Civil Procedure Article 32 paragraph 4 (Wetboek Artikel 32 lid 4), disregarding the illegal imprisonment of The Second Applicant and the illegal lifetime house-arrest , disregarding the material facts, the exceptional circumstances, the sixteen new compelling evidence, disregarding the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (HR 18 November 1997, NJ 1998, 244), the opinion of the ECtHR in the Judgment of 24 May 1989, NJ 1990, 627 (Hauschildt), and in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek Artikel 31 paragraph 4 Rv , and Artikel 36 Rv ) Please see Annex 41 ,the Panel of Judges (Mr.E.M.van der Bunt, Mr. H.J. van Kooten and Mr. S. Verheijen) declare that The Applicants have been abusing their right of request for recusal of a Judge Annex 42. 62. The Applicants informed/submitted Complaints to numerous institutions within The High Contracting Party as: a) Complaint to the President of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands -Mr. G.J.M. Corstens against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation. b) Complaint against the Chief Prosecutor of Sint Maarten Mr. Hans Mos to the Chairman of the Board of Prosecutors - General Mr. H.J. Bolhaar, and requested investigation.

Page 16 of 38

c) Complaint to the President of Centrale Raad van Beroep Mr. Drs. T.G.M. Simon against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation. d) Complaint to the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands (De Nationale Ombudsman) Mr. Alex Brenninkmeijer against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation. e) Complaint to the Vice-President of the Council of State Mr. H.D.Tjeenk Willink against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation. f) Complaint to the Ministry of Security and Justice(Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie) Mr. I.W. Opstelten against the President of the Supervisory board Mrs. L.Hoefdraad and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and requested investigation. 63. All Complaints were forwarded to different (lower) instances, rejected and/or not handled and/or are still pending(Annex 43)!

V. Statement of alleged violations of the Convention and Protocols and of relevant arguments
64. The Applicant are submitting that the following Articles of the Convention have been violated: Article 1, Article 3, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 13, Article 17 and Article 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 4.

Breach of Article 1 of the Convention Article 1 Obligation to respect human rights The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
65. The Applicants are submitting that, The High Contracting Party/The Kingdom of the Netherlands had ratified the Convention for the whole of its territory, without making any specific reservation. The High Contracting Party is one of the ten founding members of the Council of Europe. Country Sint Maarten is indisputably an integral part of the territory of The High Contracting Party and subject to its competence and control. The allegations of the violations submitted from The Applicants are within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting

Page 17 of 38

Party/Kingdom of the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (obligation to respect human rights). 66. The Applicants are submitting that The High Contracting Party fail to secure the rights and the freedoms of The Applicants, defined in Section I of this Convention. The High Contracting Party is in breach of Article 1, Article 3, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 13, Article 17 and Article 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Convention.

Breach of Article 3 of the Convention Article 3 Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
67. Ill-treatment that is not torture, in that it does not have sufficient intensity or purpose, will be classed as inhuman or degrading. 68. The Applicants are submitting that they are subject of ill-treatment within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. The Applicants WERE ORDERED to sign untrue document (Annex 17 -PRODUCTIE 5), and to surrender their basic human rights (as access to the existing legal remedies) under a threat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars) Annex 18! 69. On April.13.2012 The Second Applicant was arrested in the Court House of Sint Maarten and send directly to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten. Since April.26.2012 the Second Applicant living with constant feelings of fear of another illegal imprisonment! The illegal imprisonment and the illegal house-arrest is humiliating and degrading ill-treatment. This ill-treatment is aiming to break down the physical and moral resistance of The Second Applicant and is driving him to act against his will or conscience. The Second Applicant is a subject of deliberate cruel acts which leave him in extreme distress. 70. Aiming to redress the issue, on June.26.2012, in the Docket Session to the pending Proceedings on the merits AR 112/11 and AR 21/2012 The Applicants filed a request for disqualification against Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen Annex 34. The Petition was ignored. On the Docket Session (on 17.July.2012) The Applicants filed a second request for disqualification against Judge(s) Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen and included A.N.G.N.E. Mijnssen, Mr. D.M.Thierry, Mr. C.T.M.Luijks and Mrs.M.Keppels Annex 36. On Aug.31.2012 was the hearing to AR 112/11 and AR 21/12-HAR 42/12. Page 18 of 38

71. On Sep.07.2012 The Applicants received Final Judgment to Court Case AR 112/11 and AR 21/12-HAR 42/12. In breach of Code of Civil Procedure Article 32 paragraph 4 (Wetboek Artikel 32 lid4), disregarding the illegal imprisonment of The Second Applicant and the illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time, disregarding the material facts, the exceptional circumstances, the sixteen new compelling evidence, disregarding the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (HR 18 November 1997, NJ 1998, 244), the opinion of the ECtHR in the Judgment of 24 May 1989, NJ 1990, 627 (Hauschildt), and in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek Artikel 31 paragraph 4 Rv , and Artikel 36 Rv ) Please see Annex 41 ,the Panel of Judges (Mr.E.M.van der Bunt, Mr. H.J. van Kooten and Mr. S. Verheijen) declare that The Applicants have been abusing their right of request for recusal of a Judge Annex 42.

72. In fact, in this Final Judgment to Court Case AR 112/11 and AR 21/12-HAR 42/12, the Panel of Judges (Mr.E.M.van der Bunt, Mr. H.J. van Kooten and Mr. S. Verheijen) legalized the illegal imprisonment and the illegal lifetime house arrest of the Second Applicant. I quote: Re: c and d: The accusations and obstruction, abuse of power or forgery of documents have absolutely in no way been substantiated. Another aspect is that suspension of the proceedings of a bankrupt plaintiff is prescribed by article 23 of the Bankruptcy decree 1931 and in some cases is obligatory (article 84 Bankruptcy Decree 1931). Further the relevant decisions are rulings for which the same applies as considered here before under b.

73. Since April.27.2012 The Second Applicant is under illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time/lifetime, (Annex 32). The illegal imprisonment is based on a not-existing Court Case (EJ 20/2012 -Annex 29)! Since Nov.2009 - up to date Dec.03.2012 The Applicants paid thousands of US Dollars Court fees (Annex 7) and received unsigned, unregistered and unstamped pieces of paper, without any legal effect (Annex 4). The constant indiscreet/obvious destruction of the civil rights and freedoms of The Applicants are continuing. 74. The Second Applicant is a victim of acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation, ill-treatment and punishment, aiming to legalize untrue documents, illegal transfer of five apartments-(property of The First Applicant with real value USD 1 305 000.00- Annex 22), the disappearance of USD 550 000.00(five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) ) Annex 23 and illegally increased Mortgage amount ( with USD 835 000.00), attached to a Private Foundation without Bank account/First Applicant (Please compare the total amounts in Annex 24 and Annex 25). Page 19 of 38

75. Thus, although The Second Applicant do not suffer any severe or long-lasting physical effects, his punishments whereby he is treated as an object in the power of the authorities constituted an assault on his dignity and physical and mental integrity. The Second Applicant submits that the ill-treatments and illegal punishments are having adverse psychological effects. 76. After all and above, The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of intentionally inflicted severe mental suffering! The European Court of Human Rights has endorsed in part the definition provided in the United Nations Convention against torture, which came into force on 26 June 1987. At Article 1, the Convention states that:

the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind
77. After the illegal imprisonment, The Applicants informed (once again) the Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and requested investigation, as required by Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie Wet RO) Artikel 13 a! The Complaint is still pending/disregarded for six months, Annex 13 in breach of Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie Artikel 13 b, Artikel 13 c, Artikel 13 d, Artikel 13 e, Artikel 13 f, Artikel g, and Artikel 13 h Wet RO - Annex 14)! In the meantime the Second Applicant is under illegal house arrest, with objectively and subjectively justified fear of another illegal imprisonment!

Breach of Article 5 of the Convention Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
78. Article 5 of the European Convention embodies a key element in the protection of an individuals human rights. Personal liberty is a fundamental condition, which everyone should generally enjoy. Deprivation of liberty is something that is also likely to have a direct and adverse effect on the enjoyment of many of the other rights, ranging from the right to family and private life, Page 20 of 38

through the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression to the right to freedom of movement. Furthermore, any deprivation of liberty will invariably put the person affected into an extremely vulnerable position, exposing him or her to the risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. 79. In his Statement of Defense (VERWEERSCHRIFT) of Judge Mr. Mr.R.W.J. van Veen (Annex 38) declare the following:

March 28th 2012 (exhibit 2) I ordered that Mr. Busarov be taken into custody. On Friday April 13th 2012 Mr. Busarov was remanded in custody. On Monday April 16th 2012 the scrutiny took place pursuant to article 5 European Convention Human Rights before me (exhibit 3). By decree of April 26th 2012 I suspended the imprisonment (exhibit 4)etc.
by decree of

80.

In fact, Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen declare the following: d) On March.28.2012 (Annex 31) article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen ordered the imprisonment of The Second Applicant. e) On April.16.2012 article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was also not applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen ordered (Annex 31) the illegal imprisonment of The Second Applicant to continue. f) In the second hearing- on April.26.2012 Article 5 of the European Convention Human on Rights was applicable and Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen suspended the imprisonment of the Second Applicant, and in breach of all Domestic and International Laws ordered his illegal House-arrest for indefinite period of time(Annex 32).

81. The High Contracting Party acknowledge the fact that the imprisonment of The Second Applicant is illegal and in breach of Article 5 of the Convention, and on the other hand since April.27.2012 up to date- Dec.03.2012 The Second Applicant is still under illegal house arrest for indefinite period of time Annex 32. Breach of Article 5 paragraph 1 subparagraph (a) of the Convention

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

82. The Second Applicant was (and still is) a victim of illegal detention. The Second Applicant was arrested in the Court House of Sint Maarten without any conviction and without committing any criminal offence, The Second Applicant was sent to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten, among convicted killers and armed Page 21 of 38

robbers, with twenty years sentences and lifetime sentences. The Police and the Prosecutors office refuse to give to the Second Applicant a copy of the arrest warrant. The Court Order is not stamped, nor registered/do not have a number (Annex 31), nor the release form from the Prosecutors Office is registered/do not have a number (Annex 33).Since April.27.2012 The Second Applicant is under illegal house arrest for indefinite period of time (Annex 32). I quote:

DECISION The examining judge in bankruptcy: Suspends the order of remand in custody ordered against Yordan Stoilov Busarov pursuant to article 85 Fb effective Friday April 27th 2012, 12.00 hours. Thereby sets the following conditions: (a) that the suspect complies with the provisions in article 86 Fb, namely that he may not leave his residence without permission of the examining judge;
83. In Kurt v. Turkey, the European Court held that:
any deprivation

of liberty must not only have been effected in conformity with the substantive and procedural rules of national law but must equally be in keeping with the very purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness.
84. The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of arbitrariness, acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation! Breach of Article 5 paragraph 1 subparagraph (b) of the Convention

(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
85. The Second Applicant is a victim of illegal arrest and detention. In the Court Order, ordering the change of the detention of The Second Applicant, from imprisonment(Annex 31) to a house arrest (Annex 32) state:

The examining judge is of the opinion that suspension of a commitment for failure to comply with a judicial order is possible although the bankruptcy decision does not mention this possibility with so many words, but also does not forbid it.
86. Lawful order does not exist. The High Contracting Party confirm the fact that The Second Applicant is a victim of illegal arrest and detention! The Second Applicant was released from Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten under house arrest for indefinite period of time(Annex 32)! Breach of Article 5 paragraph 1 subparagraph (c)of the Convention

Page 22 of 38

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
87. The Second Applicant submits Breach of Article 5 paragraph 1 subparagraph c. Reasonable suspicion that The Second Applicant has committed an offence does not exist! The imprisonment (Annex 31) of The Second Applicant was not necessary and was not aiming to prevent The Second Applicant of committing an offence. The Second Applicant had never committed an offence, nor had he ever fled after having done so. Breach of Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Convention

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
88. The Second Applicant submits Breach of Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Applicants requested copy of the Court order and the arrest warrant from the Police and the Prosecutors Office of Sint Maarten! The request was denied! The Prosecutors Office Sint Maarten informed The Applicants that this is not criminal Case, and they have nothing to do with the arrest and the imprisonment of The Applicants! The Applicants were also informed that, the arrest was ordered from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen, and The Applicants should contact Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen for more information! Breach of Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Convention

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
89. Article 5 (3) requires that deprivation of liberty pending trial should never exceed a reasonable time. The European Court held repeatedly that:
continued detention may be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the right to liberty

90. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Convention. On April.16.2012 was the First hearing, in connection with the imprisonment of the Second Applicant. On the next day (April.17.2012) The Second Applicant received from The High Contracting Party only the (unregistered and not referring to any Court case - Annex 31) minutes/process-verbaal of this Court Page 23 of 38

hearing. The Second Applicant was brought promptly before a judge, but did not receive any Judgment! The Second Applicant was sent back to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten, in breach of Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Convention. 91. A suspect is not considered by the Court to be under any obligation to cooperate but his conduct in not doing so will be recognized as a factor in slowing the overall progress of an investigation. Lack of cooperation, as well as actual obstruction, will thus also be considered in assessing whether or not the total period of pre-trial detention is excessive. 92. The Second Applicant submits that on April.16.2012 and on April.26.2012 he was cooperating and clear explain that, The First Applicant/Evmolpia PF do not have a Bank Account, cannot receive USD 1 670 000.00 (one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars) AND CAN NOT BE BANKRUPT! The Second Applicant also clear explain that, he was not summoned, was not present and is not a party in Court Case EJ 20/2012, and that makes the vonnis to EJ 20/2012 (Annex 29) a untrue/forged document. The truth was not the cooperation expected from the Judge handling the hearing! He informed the Second Applicant that, if the Second Applicant do not cooperate and declare that he and his Private Foundation are Bankrupt, he will order another 30 days imprisonment, after that another 30 days, and another 30 daysetc! 93. The Second Applicant submits that the truthful reason for the Illegal imprisonment was to break down the physical and moral resistance of The Second Applicant, to drive him to act against his will or conscience, to stop his attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice and to legalize forged documents, the disappearance of USD 550 000.00, the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00 and the usurpation of the property of The First Applicant. Breach of Article 5 paragraph 4 of the Convention

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
94. The obligation in Article 5 (4) applies whatever ground for detention is given. The domestic authorities must provide recourse to courts in all cases including in those justified under Article 5 (1). 95. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 5 paragraph 4 of the Convention.

Page 24 of 38

a) On April.16.2012 was the First hearing, in connection with the

imprisonment of the Second Applicant. The Second Applicant received from The High Contracting Party only the unregistered and not referring to any Court case (Annex 31) minutes (process-verbaal) of this Court Hearing! The lawfulness of his detention was not decided speedily by the Court! His release was not ordered nor was decided if his detention is lawful or not lawful. The Second Applicant was brought promptly before a judge, but did not receive any Judgment. b) On April.26.2012 was the second hearing in connection with the illegal imprisonment. On April.27.2012 The Second Applicant received from Judge Mr.R.W.J. van Veen only unregistered Judgment/Beshikking Annex32. In this Judgment/Beshikking clear state:

DECISION The examining judge in bankruptcy: Suspends the order of remand in custody ordered against Yordan Stoilov Busarov pursuant to article 85 Fb effective Friday April 27th 2012, 12.00 hours. Thereby sets the following conditions: a. that the suspect complies with the provisions in article 86 Fb, namely that he may not leave his residence without permission of the examining judge; b. that he complies with summonses to appear of and by the examining judge and/or of and by the trustees Messrs. M. Le Poole, LL.M. and H. A. Seferina, LL.M., employed at HBN Law. This decision has been given by R. W. J. van Veen, LL.M., judge in the Court of First Instance on Sint Maarten, and pronounced in open court in presence of the clerk of the court on April 26th 2012. w.s. J. Evers-Maria R. W. J. van Veen

96. On Sep.07.2012 in the Final Judgment to Court Case AR 112/11 and AR 21/12-HAR 42/12, the Panel of Judges (Mr.E.M.van der Bunt, Mr. H.J. van Kooten and Mr. S. Verheijen) confirmed/legalized the illegal imprisonment of the Second Applicant. I quote: 2.6 From the petition and the plea of Evmolpia and associates and the explanation given of that at the court hearing the Court of Appeal deduces that briefly represented apparently the following is the basis of the request: d. Mr. Van Veen had Busarov detained pursuant to false and documents falsified by him;

Page 25 of 38

Re: c and d: The accusations and obstruction, abuse of power or forgery of documents have absolutely in no way been substantiated. Another aspect is that suspension of the proceedings of a bankrupt plaintiff is prescribed by article 23 of the Bankruptcy decree 1931 and in some cases is obligatory (article 84 Bankruptcy Decree 1931). Further the relevant decisions are rulings for which the same applies as considered here before under b. 97. In fact, according to those Judgments (Beschikking- Annex 32 and vonnisAnnex 42) since April.26.2012 the Second Applicant is under illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time, with a possibility of another illegal imprisonment, for his attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice and for not cooperating in the legalization of the forged documents, the disappearance of USD 550 000.00, the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00 and the usurpation of five apartments - property of The First Applicant. 98. The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of acts of arbitrariness, acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of severe intimidation. Article 5 paragraph 5 of the Convention

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
99. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 5 of the Convention Within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. The Second Applicant was illegally imprisoned and is currently under illegal house arrest for indefinite period of time. The Second Applicant submits that he has been a victim of illegal imprisonment and home-detention (Annex 32) in contravention of the provisions of this Article and have an enforceable right to compensation. The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of direct coercion, flagrant acts of intimidation, aiming to legalize untrue documents, unlawful transfer of five apartments-(property of The First Applicant - with real value USD 1 305 000.00), the disappearance of USD 550 000.00(five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) and the illegally increased Mortgages (with USD 835 000.00 penalty), attached to a Private Foundation without Bank account/The First Applicant. Breach of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention

Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawetc..

Page 26 of 38

100. The Applicants are submitting double violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention. a) Since November.2009 - up to date (Dec.03.2012) The High Contracting Party denied Proper Administration of Justice, and in fact denied to The Applicants access to Court. The Applicants paid thousands of US Dollars Court Fees(Annex 7) and received from the The High Contracting Party unsigned, unregistered and unstamped pieces of paper without any legal efect (Annex 4). The Applicants submitted numerous Petitions/Requests for Proper Administration of Justice. All Request were disregarded (Annex 6).
b) Since November.2009 - up to date Dec.03.2012) The High Contracting

Party denied an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.The Applicants received from The High Contracting Party unconstitutional, provisionally enforceable verdict #16 (vonnis), ordering to The Applicants to sign false/untrue document (Annex 17 PRODUCTIE 5) and forbid to The Applicants further attempts of access Justice, under a treat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars) (Annex 18)!
c)

In breach of the Domestic and International Laws, for three years The High Contracting Party denied to The Applicants a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (Annex 4). Disregard the fact that, the First Applicant does not have and never had a Bank Account, and it is impossible to receive USD 1 670 000.00(one million six hundred and seventy thousand US Dollars-Annex 24), The High Contracting Party declare The Applicants Bankrupt and deprived the Second Applicant of his rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention(Annex 31, Annex 32and Annex 42) !

d) In the beginning of March 2010 (along with the Court Cases) The

Applicants submitted Complaint to the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, against the fraudulent Notary Office Gijsbertha, as required by the Law on the notarial profession, Chapter VI. Supervision (Wet op het notarisambt Hoofdstuk VI. Toezicht). The Complaint was registered on March.23.2010. (Annex 8). Since March23.2010 up to date (Dec.03.2012) The Applicant informed dozens of times the Supervisory Board of the illegal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha, and submitted via FedEx, e-mails and faxes new compelling evidence (Annex 9). Since March.23.2010. - up to date (Dec.03.2012) The High Contracting Party

Page 27 of 38

denied not only impartial tribunal established by law, The High Contracting Party denied any tribunal established by law!
e) In breach of the Domestic and International Laws, disregarding the

illegal imprisonment of The Second Applicant and the Illegal house-arrest (for indefinite period of time), disregarding the material facts, the exceptional circumstances, the sixteen new compelling evidence, disregarding the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (HR 18 November 1997, NJ 1998, 244), disregarding the opinion of the ECtHR in the Judgment of 24 May 1989, NJ 1990, 627 (Hauschildt) Please see Annex 41 , The High Contracting Party denied to The Applicants hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and on Sep.07.2012 declare (via unregistered Judgment/vonnis) that The Applicants abuse their right of request for recusal of a Judge Annex 42. Breach of Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Convention

Article 7 No punishment without law 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
101. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Convention Within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1) The Applicants received provisionally enforceable verdict #16 (vonnis) - (Annex 18)! In this judgment The High Contracting Party ordered to The Applicants to sign false/untrue document (Annex 17 PRODUCTIE 5) and forbid to The Applicants further attempts to receive Justice, under a treat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars)! In the Dutch Judiciary does not exist Article in any Law book (Wetboek), allowing the The High Contracting Party to order to The Applicants to sign untrue document, or to forbid to The Applicants further attempts to receive Justice, under a threat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars)! In fact, in any constitutional Country/Kingdom does not exist Article in any Law book, allowing this Country/Kingdom to order to anyone to sign false/untrue document, or to forbid to anyone further Page 28 of 38

attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice, under a threat of a penalty USD 5 000.00(FIVE THOUSAND US Dollars) PER DAY, up-to USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars) Annex 18! 2) Based on a untrue document, (named vonnis to a not-existing Court Case EJ 20/2012-Annex 29), on April.13.2012 The Second Applicant was arrested twenty five minutes before a hearing, in connection with Appeal Court Case AR 184/2010 H -200/12, and sent directly to Pointe Blanche Prison Sint Maarten (Annex 31)! The Second Applicant is still under illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time Annex 32! Breach of Article 8 of the Convention

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right exceptetc.
102. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 8 paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1. Home detention provides an alternative to imprisonment and aims to reduce re-offending. While house arrest can be applied to criminal cases when prison does not seem an appropriate measure, the term is often applied to the use of house confinement as a measure of repression by authoritarian governments against political dissidents. 2. The Second Applicant is not a criminal nor political dissident, and yet he is treated as such. With the illegal House arrest (for indefinite period of time) the public authorities illegally interfere in the private and family life of the Second Applicant Annex 31, Annex 32 and Annex 42. The private and family life of the Second Applicant is violated and disrespected. The Second Applicant is a victim of direct coercion, flagrant acts of intimidation for his attempts to receive Proper Administration of Justice. Breach of Article 13 of the Convention

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Page 29 of 38

103. The Applicants are submitting violation of Article 13 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1. Since April.27.2012 The Second Applicant is under illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time Annex 32 and Annex 42. The rights and freedoms of The Second Applicant (as set forth in this Convention) are violated. The High Contracting Party denied to The Applicants access to the existing effective remedies, as the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries (Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en KandidaatNotarissen), the Prosecutors Office of Sint Maarten(Openbaar Ministerie), the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba) and to the Attorney-Generals Office of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands! Breach of Article 17 of the Convention

Article 17 Prohibition of abuse of rights Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.
104. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 17 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party.
1.

The Public authorities interpreted as implying to The Second Applicant the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, aiming to prevent further attempts of access to the effective remedies before the national authorities. The restriction of the rights and freedom permitted under this Convention were/and still are (Annex 31, Annex 32 and Annex 42) used as instruments for direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation, aiming to legalize untrue documents, illegal transfer of five apartments-(property of The First Applicant - with real value USD 1 305 000.00), the disappearance of USD 550 000.00(five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) and illegally increased Mortgages ( with USD 835 000.00 penalty), attached to a Private Foundation without Bank account Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25!

Breach of Article 18 of the Convention

Page 30 of 38

Article 18 Limitation on use of restrictions on rights The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
105. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 18 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1. The restriction of the rights and freedom permitted under this Convention were(and still are) used as instruments for direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation, aiming to legalize untrue documents, as the illegal transfer of five apartments-(property of The First Applicant with real value USD 1 305 000.00 - Annex 22), the disappearance of USD 550 000.00(five hundred and fifty thousand US Dollars) and illegally increased Mortgages ( with USD 835 000.00 penalty), attached to a The First Applicant/Private Foundation without Bank account(Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25). Breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention

Article 1 Protection of property Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.etc.
106. The First Applicant submits violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1. The First Applicants submits direct connection between the denied access to the effective legal remedies before national authorities (as Prosecutors Office, Supervisory Board over the Notaries and the Court), the illegal transfer of five apartments/Property of the First Applicant (Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25), the illegal imprisonment of the Second Applicant (Annex 31) and the unlawful house-arrest of the Second Applicant (for indefinite period of time) (Annex 32 ad Annex 42). The First Applicant is deprived of his possessions unlawfully within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party and the right of the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions is violated. Breach of Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Convention Page 31 of 38

Article 1 Prohibition of imprisonment for debt No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.
107. The Second Applicant submits violation of Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Convention within the jurisdiction of The High Contracting Party. 1. The First Applicant does not have and never had Bank account. The First and Second Mortgage deeds are untrue documents attached to Private Foundation without Bank Account. The transfer of five apartments(property of The First Applicant - with real value USD 1 305 000.00-Annex 22) is illegal. The imprisonment (Annex 31 and Annex 32) and the illegal house arrest for indefinite period of time of the Second Applicant merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation it is still in violation of Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Convention!

V. Conclusion
108. The Applicants are submitting direct connection between the denied Proper Administration of Justice (for three years) from the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba), and the criminal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha Sint Maarten and in the Cadastre Land Registry Sint Maarten! 109. The Applicants are submitting direct connection between the denial of any tribunal from the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries (de Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen), and the criminal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha Sint Maarten and in the Cadastre Land Registry Sint Maarten! 110. The Second Applicant submits direct connection between his illegal imprisonment, and the criminal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha Sint Maarten and in the Cadastre Land Registry Sint Maarten! 111. The Second Applicant submits direct connection between his illegal lifetime House-arrest, and the criminal activities in Notary Office Gijsbertha Sint Maarten and in the Cadastre Land Registry Sint Maarten! Page 32 of 38

112. The Applicants are submitting direct connection between the denied access to the existing legal remedies(for three years), the illegal imprisonment of the Second Applicant, the illegal lifetime House Arrest of the Second Applicant, and the astronomical pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages The Applicants are suffering! 113. It is well-known the fact that, the cancerous diseases of the modern democratic societies are discrimination and corruption! For The Applicants are clear the reasons, leading to the illegal acts and omissions of the President of the Supervisory Board over the Notaries and Candidate Notaries (President van de Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen) Mrs.Lisbeth Hoefdraad and the Senior Judge from the Court of First Instance Sint Maarten Mr. R.W.J. van Veen! 114. For the Applicants are not clear the justified reasons leading to AttorneyGenerals Office in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to disregard the material facts, and to allow the acts of arbitrariness and acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (aiming to cover-up criminal activities) to continue! 115. The Second Applicant submits that he is a victim of intentionally inflicted severe mental suffering, acts of arbitrariness, acts of direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation, aiming to legalize false/untrue documents, the illegal transfer of five apartments (property of The First Applicant) and the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00(Eight hundred thirty five thousand US Dollars) Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25, in breach of all Domestic and International Laws! 116. After the refusal of de Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Mr. J.W.Fokkens to investigate illegal activities in the Court rooms of the Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie, on March.05.2012 The Applicants submitted complaint against the Procureur-Generaal Mr. J.W.Fokkens to the President van Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Dhr. G.J.M. Corstens (Annex 44). The President van Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Dhr. G.J.M. Corstens forwarded the Complaint to the Plaatsvervangend Procureur-Generaal Mw. C. L. de Vries Lentsch-Kostense. On May.01.2012 the secretary of the Plaatsvervangend Procureur-Generaal Mw. C. L. de Vries Lentsch-Kostense Mrs. Aknowlidge the exsistance of the Complaint (Annex 45). The last corespondance from the Applicants with the Plaatsvervangend Procureur-Generaal Mw. C. L. de Vries Lentsch-Kostense was on June.04.2012 (Annex 46). Since June.04.2012 up to date - Dec.03.2012 (for six months) the Complaint is not handled/disregarded!

Page 33 of 38

117. For The Applicants it is not clear, if the illegal imprisonment of the Second Applicant and the illegal lifetime House Arrest of the Second Applicant are with the blessing/ordered of/from de President van Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie Mrs. Lisbeth Hoefdraad and/or de Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Mr. J.W.Fokkens, or the Senior Judge from the Court of First Instance Sint Maarten Mr. R.W.J. van Veen on his own initiative (before his departure from the Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie in year 2013) is determine to crash the attempts of the Applicants to receive Proper Administration of Justice and to help criminals to usurp illegaly the property of the First Applicant? 118. On Sep.07.2012 The Applicants received (not-stamped) Final Decision number (none) to Court Case AR 112/11 en 21/2012-HAR 42/12 Annex 42 (signed from unknown persons). This Decision is final and binding! 119. In fact, The High Contracting Party ones again denied to the Applicants impartial tribunal establish by Law, and on Sep.07.2012 confirm/legalize (with Final Decision number -none- to a Court Case AR 112/11 en 21/2012-HAR 42/12 Annex 42) the illegal imprisonment (Annex 31) and the illegal house-arrest for indefinite period of time Annex 32! 120. According to the Domestic Laws this is a Final Judgment (Final Decision number -none-to a Court Case AR 112/11 en 21/2012-HAR 42/12 -Annex 42), all legal remedies are exhausted and the decision cannot be appealed. Code of Civil Procedure Article 34 paragraph 4 and 5 is stating:

4. In case of abuse the Joint Court of Justice can determine that a following request is not dealt with. Of this mention is made in the decision. 5. The decision cannot be appealed
Or in Dutch:

Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering Article 34 lid.4 en 5: 4.In geval van misbruik kan het Hof bepalen dat een volgend verzoek niet in behandeling wordt genomen. Hiervan wordt in de beslissing melding gemaakt. 5.Tegen de beslissing staat geen rechtsmiddel open.
121. After all and above, on Dec.13.2012 at 8:30AM the Senior Judge from the Court of First Instance Sint Maarten Mr. R.W.J. van Veen will handle the hearings and render Judgments on/to the pending Proceedings on the merits AR 112/2011 and AR 21/2012 (which ware started from The Applicants in connection with the false/untrue

documents, the illegal transfer of five apartments (property of The First Applicant) and the illegally increased Mortgage amount with USD 835 000.00(Eight hundred thirty five thousand
Page 34 of 38

US Dollars) Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25, in breach of all Domestic and International Laws)! It is unbelievable, but fact!
122. The Applicants are submitting that they did not have other effective remedies. The acts of arbitrariness, the acts of direct coercion and the flagrant acts of intimidation are continuing! 123. If the refusal of the competent authorities to investigate is aiming to protect the image and the trust on/in the Dutch Judiciary, the effect is inverse! The victims of criminals activities are deprived of liberty illegally (Annex 31 and 32)!With a feeling of impunity, the Senior Judge of the Court of First Instance Sint Maarten Mr. R.W.J. van Veen abuse the power invested in him! Without any hesitation, Judge Mr. R.W.J. van Veen misleads in Court (Annex 38)! Sworn Duties, Human Rights and Freedoms, Impartiality, Honor and Dignity are words without meaning for Judge Mr. R.W.J. van Veen! Legalization of the untrue documents and the protection of the white collar criminals in question is the only target for Judge Mr. R.W.J. van Veen (Annex 23, Annex 24 and Annex 25). The applicable Laws are not applicable.The Human Rights and Freedoms of the Second Applicant have no value within the Jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands! Illegal imprisonment and Lifetime Home-Detention is the only reward for residents, which are attempting to receive Proper Administration of Justiceetc! 124. As mentioned above, the Second Applicant is with Bulgarian nationality! It is a fact that, The Netherlands has been vetoing the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Area since September 2011 out of concerns for corruption, organized crime, and rule of law in the youngest EU member states. The Dutch government has confirmed the Netherlands' veto on Bulgaria and Romania's Schengen entry in a briefing to the Dutch MPs (Dutch News reported Sep.2012). After legal consultations and studying Dutch Laws(Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering,

Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie (Wet RO), Wet op het notarisambt, Rijksbesluit rechtspositie Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie, Rijkswet Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie),The
Applicants are submitting the following:
a) Bulgarian Judge (nor any Judge from any other EU Member

State), abusing the power invested in him to the extent of ordering to someone to sign false documents and forbidding him further attempts to receive Justice, under a threat of penalty USD 5 000.00(five thousand US Dollars) PER DAY, upto USD 500 000.00(five hundred thousand US Dollars - Annex 18) does not exist!

Page 35 of 38

b) In Bulgarian Judiciary (nor in any other EU Member State

Judiciary), punishments as Lifetime Home-Detention (for indefinite period of time-Annex 32) does not exist.

c) In Bulgarian Judiciary (nor in any other EU Member State

Judiciary), Judge(s) refusing to sign their Judgment (for three years - Annex 4) does not exist! 125. For the Applicants it is not clear the following:
a)

Is it the behavior and the judgments (of the Judge of the Court of First Instance Mr. C.T.M.Luijks (Annex 18 and 20) and of the Vice-President of the Joint Court of Justice Mr.R.W.J. van Veen (Annex 31 and 32), or the refusal of Judge(s) from the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba to sign their Judgments- Annex 4) example for high standards for the Bulgarian and Romanian Judges?

b) Is it the omissions and disregard of the criminal activities

(in Notary Office Gijsbertha Sint Maarten and in the Cadastre Land Registry Sint Maarten from the Kamer van Toezicht over de Notarissen en Kandidaat-Notarissen)
example for high standards for the Bulgarian and Romanian Judges?

c) Is it the omissions and disregard

(from the Board of the Joint Court of

Justice) of the intentionally inflicted severe mental suffering, the acts of

arbitrariness, the acts of direct coercion and the flagrant acts of intimidation above example for high standards for the Bulgarian and Romanian Judges?
d) Is it disregarding of all above

(from the Procureur-Generaal Mr.

J.W.Fokkens) example for high standards for the Bulgarian and

Romanian Attorney-Generals?
e) Is it the intentionally inflicted severe mental suffering, the illegal

imprisonment and the illegal lifetime home-detention (which are aiming

to cover-up criminal activities within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) example for Proper Administration of Justice for the
Bulgarian and Romanian Judges and Attorney-Generals?
f)

Is it the protection of white collar criminals and the detention of the victims of criminal activities example for Proper Administration of Justice for the Bulgarian and Romanian Judges and AttorneyGenerals?

g)

etc>

Page 36 of 38

126. The Applicants strongly believe that every reasonable person (after having verified the accuracy of the facts and their legal interpretation) will condemn all and above for unacceptable and damaging the image, the trust and the reputation of any Judiciary, and will insist the perpetrators to be identified and punished!

VI. Statement of the object of the application

127. In addition to the prima facie obligation on the judicial authorities themselves not to engage in any prohibited behavior, such as in the imposition of an illegal punishment, there is an overriding obligation for the judicial authorities to investigate allegations of violations of Article 3 and Article 5(ECHR). As violations of this articles are serious breaches of core and fundamental human rights guarantees, the investigations into allegations must they be of a high standard they must be thorough, effective and capable of leading to the identification of any perpetrators and their punishment.

Therefore The Applicants strongly protest against the continuing indifference and refusal of the competent authorities to investigate the continuing severe violations on the ECHR and kindly ask Your Majesty as follows:
1. To intervene and stop the continuing refusal of the competent authorities to investigate the allegations of the violations on the Article 1, Article 3, Article 5, Article 6,Article 7, Article 8, Article 13, Article 17 and Article 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, leading to the continuing illegal punishments, to the continuing acts of arbitrariness and acts of direct coercion and to the continuing flagrant acts of intimidation, which are aiming to cover-up criminal activities within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

VII. Declaration and signature

Page 37 of 38

I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct. Respectfully: Y.Busarov (Second Applicant). On his behalf and on behalf of Evmolia PF (First Applicant), Place: Sint Maarten. Date: Dec.03.2012. Signature: e-mail: jordan@caribserve.net In case anyone concerned/mentioned in this Application find the language of The Applicants offensive, insulting, provocative or exceeding the bounds of normal, civil and legitimate criticism, The Applicants would like to apologize! The Applicants were aiming to describe the facts as clear as possible, with respect and in respectful manner, with to the best of the knowledge of The Applicants! Respectfully: Y.Busarov.(Second Applicant) On his behalf and on behalf of Evmolia PF (First Applicant) Sint Maarten. Dec.03.2012. Signature: Attached: 46 Annexes. p.s. On Nov.23.2012 (in a phone conversation) the Secretary of the Director of The Queens Office Mr. C. Breedveld informed The Applicant that the Complaints/Petitions/Applications to Her Majesty can be submitted in English Language. In case this information is incorrect, and/or if necessary for better handling of this Application, The Applicants will re-send (upon request) this Application in Dutch Language!

Respectfully: Y.Busarov(Second Applicant). On his behalf and on behalf of Evmolia PF (First Applicant), Place: Sint Maarten. Date: Dec.03.2012. Signature: e-mail: jordan@caribserve.net

Page 38 of 38