"The blame for the situation in the field of justice lies with the parliament. They do not find the political will to cast their political quota in the Supreme Judicial Council. The first institution in the state, which is called upon to defend the interests of citizens, does not want to adhere to the constitutional provisions“.
This is what he said in “Face to Face“ on bTV Prof. Plamen Panayotov, Head of the Department of Criminal Sciences at Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski".
„The state should not be allowed to be closed due to inaction of the parliament. The acting prosecutor general was elected by the prosecutorial college in 2023 with the condition that he will be such until a prosecutor general is elected for a full term. The act of the prosecutor's office was not challenged before the Supreme Administrative Court and it turns out that the situation is as it is“.
According to him, if people want to protest against certain institutions related to this case, they should protest in front of the parliament.
The “Kotsev“ case“
“In order to take this measure, it is necessary either for there to be a danger that the accused will abscond, or for there to be a danger that he will commit new crimes. They fear the latter because they say that he continues to hold the position of “mayor of Varna“ and would illegally influence the possibility of conducting the preliminary proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for the possibility, if the prosecutor's office has such doubts, to request the temporary removal of the accused from office. The accused has been detained for more than 3 months, why was this measure not requested?“, commented Prof. Panayotov.
“It is difficult for me to give an explanation because there are no motives on this issue that are available to the public. In such cases of significant public interest, situations are observed that lead to doubt that the compulsory measures of detention - detention and house arrest, are used as methods of collecting evidence. This is complete absurdity and is not their purpose by law. It should be carefully considered whether the regulation of taking these measures should not be changed and they should be taken only in exceptional cases. Taking a measure of detention should take place after the preliminary proceedings have been completed and there is already convincing evidence. Only then is it justified to follow such a strong restriction of the personal rights and freedoms of the accused person, pointed out Prof. Plamen Panayotov.