site.btaCourt Dismisses One Appeal against Lecheva’s Election as BOC President, Four Still Pending

Sofia City Court has dismissed claims filed by the Bulgarian Badminton Federation against the decisions of the General Assembly of the Bulgarian Olympic Committee (BOC) held on March 19 this year, according to a court ruling dated October 29, published on the Supreme Judicial Council’s website. The legal team of BOC President-elect Vesela Lecheva noted that four other court cases with identical claims, filed by other BOC members, are still pending.

“This ruling is landmark for the outcome of these similar cases, clearly and unequivocally showing the court’s approach in assessing the legality of the decisions made by the BOC General Assembly on March 19 and the election of Vesela Lecheva as the new BOC President,” the legal team stated.

The newly elected BOC leadership, headed by Lecheva, has not yet been registered in the Commercial Register due to ongoing court appeals. On May 17, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that it had provisionally recognised the results of the BOC Elective General Assembly on March 19, 2025, confirming that Lecheva and her team are the only individuals authorised to represent the BOC to the IOC, within the Olympic Movement, and at all IOC-recognised events and Games.

In its claims, the Bulgarian Badminton Federation argued that the decisions taken during the March General Assembly were unlawful, as no report on BOC activities for the period April 2024 – March 2025 (Agenda Item 1) had been presented, nor were the 2024 financial statements and auditor’s report (Agenda Item 2), or the supervisory board’s report for the same period (Agenda Item 3). The Federation contended that, “without approval and acknowledgement of BOC activity for the stated periods, it was entirely impossible to release the Executive Bureau members, the Supervisory Board, and the BOC President from accountability for their actions.”

The Federation also argued that certain individuals were allowed to vote at the meeting without being properly authorised by their respective bodies to participate in the General Assembly, and listed other claims it considered to compromise the Assembly and its decisions.

In its ruling, the court examined the evidence and refuted the claims point by point. It concluded that there were no significant violations that would compromise the proceedings. No other breaches were found that could render the decisions unlawful.