9 years in prison for Nacho Panteleev, who caused the death of Ferrario Spasov in a serious accident
A three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) leaves in force the appeal decision No. 70/12.06.2025, issued under v.n.o.h.d. No. 114/2025 by the Court of Appeal-Veliko Tarnovo. The decision is final.
The case was initiated on a cassation appeal by the defendant Nacho Panteleev against the decision of the appellate court, stating all grounds for review under Art. 348, para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and making requests under the conditions of alternativeness to annul the appellate decision and return the case for a new hearing or to amend the contested decision in the direction of reducing the amount of the punishment.
By the verdict of the District Court-Veliko Tarnovo under n.o.h.d. No. 344/2024, the defendant Nacho Panteleev was found guilty of violating the traffic rules on 11.11.2023 while driving a motor vehicle (MPV) - Art. 21, para. 1 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA), driving at a speed of 165 km/h at a speed limit of 90 km/h outside built-up areas and causing a traffic accident with a passenger car driven by Ferrario S., driving in the same direction towards Veliko Tarnovo, thereby negligently causing his death, the act being a particularly serious case. The defendant was sentenced to "imprisonment" for a term of 5 years and "disqualification from driving a vehicle" for a term of 5 years.
He was found not guilty and acquitted of the remaining charges - that he violated the traffic rules under Art. 42, para. 2, item 1 of the Road Traffic Act (a driver who overtakes is obliged to ensure sufficient lateral distance between his and the overtaken vehicle during overtaking).
With the appealed decision of the Court of Appeal, the first-instance verdict was amended in the sanction part, as the term of the punishment "imprisonment" was increased from 5 to 9 years, and that of the punishment "deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle" - from 5 to 11 years. The verdict was confirmed in its remaining part.
The judicial panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation found the filed cassation appeal admissible, but unfounded. According to the supreme judges, the appellate court fully accepted the factual situation established by the first instance court, which was not disputed by the parties, and legally accepted that it was not necessary to collect and verify new evidence.
The main objection in the appeal for an admitted violation of the substantive law with regard to the qualifying characteristic of the committed crime - “particularly serious case“ is unfounded.
The cassation panel fully shares and fully supports the legal qualification thus adopted by the previous instances, since the manner of carrying out the act itself, the gravity of the guilt, the personality of the victim, etc. have been discussed in detail, on the basis of which it is rightly accepted that, in view of its objective properties and elements, what was committed exceeds ordinary cases of the same such crimes.
According to the supreme judges, the appellate court correctly assumed that the crime was committed with the more serious form of carelessness - criminal arrogance, which in itself increases both the public danger of the act and the perpetrator.
With regard to the objection of manifest injustice of the imposed punishment, the supreme judges find the complaint in this regard unfounded. The cassation panel did not find that any of the mitigating circumstances were omitted or that their importance was underestimated in the individualization of the punishment and found that they were adequately assessed by the appellate court.
The judicial panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation considers that the committed act is characterized by a high degree of public danger in view of the harmful consequences that occurred, the extremely gross violation of the speed limit, failure to comply with the specific traffic situation, the meteorological conditions of the road, as well as the threat to the safety of other road users.
The numerous previous violations of the rules under the Road Traffic Act, the majority of which are for exceeding the maximum permitted speed, in their entirety require the conclusion that the act in question is not an incidental manifestation of non-compliance with the regulatory rules, but is the realization of their inevitable culmination, for which administrative-criminal liability has not had the necessary corrective and educational impact.
Therefore, the punishment determined under the terms of Art. 54 of the Criminal Code is fair and will contribute to the maximum extent to achieving the goals referred to in Art. 36 of the Criminal Code, therefore its reduction would be a manifestation of unjustified leniency.