“The findings contained in a final judgment of a criminal court and concerning the issue whether the act in question has been committed, its unlawfulness and the perpetrator’s guilt, are binding on the civil court when it examines the civil consequences of the criminal act.” 62. The parties have submitted to the Court a number of decisions of the Bulgarian Supreme Court as to the effect of the above provisions. In decision no. 3421 of 18 January 1980 in case no. 1366/79, the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court held: “In principle the fact of a crime may only be established under the procedures of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is why, when an alleged civil right derives from a fact which constitutes a crime under the Criminal Code, the civil court, according to Article 182(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is obliged to suspend the civil proceedings. This is necessary in order to respect the decision of the criminal court. It is mandatory for the civil courts regardless of the crime in issue. The mandatory binding force of the decisions of criminal courts is set out in Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” In decision no. 12/1966, the Plenary Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court held as follows: “The decision of the prosecution to terminate the criminal prosecution based on a finding that the accused is not guilty of committing the criminal act does not bind the civil court which examines the civil consequences of this act... [T]he civil court, on the basis of evidence [collected] in the course of the civil proceedings, can reach different factual findings, for example that the tort was in fact caused by the same person, the criminal prosecution against whom had been terminated. If in the course of the civil proceedings, after collection of evidence, fresh criminal circumstances are discovered, the determination of which is decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in accordance with Article 182(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.” In interpretative decision no. 11 of 3 January 1967 (Yearbook 1967), the Civil Assembly of the Supreme Court of Bulgaria held: “…In principle a civil court may not establish whether any particular act constitutes a crime. But when the criminal proceedings were closed under Article 6(21) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [where the criminal procedure was closed following the death of the alleged perpetrator, expiry of the time-limit for prosecution or where an amnesty has been granted], the criminal court does not make a decision whether the act constitues a crime. In such cases, the law – Article 97(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure – provides a possibility for the civil court to establish in a separate procedure whether the act constitutes a crime and who was the perpetrator.” In decision no. 817 of 13 December 1988 in case no. 725, a claim for damages arising out of a car accident, the Fourth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court held: “In dismissing the claim, the first instance court had found that the only one responsible for the car accident was the claimant, who, at a distance of about ten metres, suddenly jumped in front of the car in order to cross the street and therefore, despite the measures taken by the driver, the collision was not avoided. This conclusion was based on the fact that the criminal investigation against the driver had been closed on the grounds of lack of evidence, ill-foundedness, lack of some of the elements comprising a crime in the accusation and lack of guilt.