Daniela Taleva is the first judge to become a prosecutor investigating the Prosecutor General or his deputies. At the beginning, two years ago, she announced that she only wanted a computer and an office, so that they would not be identified with Acting Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov.
"I expect at least an office with a computer to be provided, where I can sit and work. I have no claims. I simply believe that it would be best for both the ad hoc prosecutor and the potential acting Prosecutor General, who will be the subject of an investigation, not to have close points of contact," said Taleva.
Two years later, there is no official information from Taleva's office about what she has been working on. According to information from various sources, she has reviewed numerous files based on received signals. It is known that only two criminal proceedings were initiated, which were subsequently terminated.
In an interview with “24 Chasa” Taleva says that she has questioned absolutely all the magistrates who visited the “Osemte dvujeta” restaurant. She established that Sarafov had been to the establishment several times, but there were no eyewitnesses who had seen him alone with his former colleague Petyo Petrov - Euroto. We are taking stock of how well the Prosecutor General's investigation mechanism is working with the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Cassation Lada Paunova. She is the person who receives the signals and, if there is evidence of a crime, forwards them to Taleva.
"During the period from the introduction of the mechanism to the present, the Supreme Court of Cassation has received a total of 108 notifications of crimes committed by the Prosecutor General or his deputy, with 73 files being opened. Why are there fewer files? Because I have combined several signals into one file, if they are from the same person or concern the same act. Of these 73 files in total - 43 have been sent to the General Prosecutor's Office and 29 to the prosecutor for the investigation of crimes committed by the Prosecutor General. From then on, what happens to these files, neither the head of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in my person, nor the Criminal Chamber has information, since the law does not provide for any notification or accountability for what happens to the files that are sent to the so-called. ad hoc prosecutor", explained Paunova.
It turns out – there are also gaps in the investigation mechanism.
"The legal regulation should provide for some accountability of the ad hoc prosecutor, if not constantly during the time in which he exercises his activity, then at least upon completion of the mandate, to make it clear how many files he has worked on, what are their results. The other hypothesis in which acts issued by the ad hoc prosecutor are subject to control – is when he terminates criminal proceedings. This is also subject to judicial control. When terminating pre-trial proceedings, the cases of Art. 243a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not quoting it by chance - to appoint a supervising prosecutor. Why did I quote this text? Because there is no such text in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not been there since the adoption of the mechanism", emphasized the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
In these two years, no charges have been brought against the Prosecutor General.
"A large part of the signals, including those that at first glance do not contain data on a crime committed by the Prosecutor General. Because, for example, a convicted person writes to me that he was convicted unfairly and blames the Prosecutor General for that. There are also serious signals. At the beginning, materials were sent from pre-trial proceedings that had already been initiated. There were other more serious signals related to the property status of the acting Prosecutor General or specific actions. There was more serious factual data about Petyo Euroto and the Notary, but how they were investigated and evidence collected, I cannot say. There were also signals suitable for prosecution", commented the magistrate.
Now - if there are pending investigations against the Prosecutor General or his deputy, only then will a judge be sought who will become a prosecutor and investigate.
"The powers of the ad hoc prosecutor can be exercised for a maximum of two years, which means that there is really no other way than for the Supreme Judicial Council to dismiss Taleva from her position and, accordingly, the Judicial College to appoint her as a judge in the Sofia City Court. A new prosecutor will be appointed to investigate crimes committed by the Prosecutor General or his deputy, but this will happen in the event that there are pending proceedings against the chief prosecutor. If there are any, then a new ad hoc prosecutor will be elected - from among judges. "We have already initiated a procedure to require the courts to agree to the judges who meet the conditions to be included in the list of possible candidates for investigation by the Prosecutor General," Paunova noted.
Practice shows that there are deficits.
"They are in terms of ensuring the institutional independence of the investigating prosecutor, because when he is elected and appointed as a prosecutor in the Supreme Court of Justice, the respective judge practically becomes part of the prosecution system. It is no coincidence that when the current investigating prosecutor took office, we tried to explain to the Supreme Judicial Council - about the purely factual provision of premises for work, an information system for employees. That is, Taleva sits on the same floor as Sarafov, this is the floor of the prosecution. There is no way she could be anywhere else, but it is not only that. She, as part of the prosecution - submits a request for leave to the respective deputy chief prosecutor", the magistrate further explained.
Do we have a chief prosecutor after July 21? According to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice - no. Later, the prosecution responded. In the position of the state prosecution, they said that the leadership of the Supreme Court of Justice pursues only political goals - a pathetic attempt to discredit the prosecutor's office.
"Is the acting prosecutor general currently actively authorized to request the reopening of criminal cases? The answer is negative. In this regard, there are already three court acts, two orders and one decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which accept that within the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code, the currently acting prosecutor general is not actively authorized to file a request for reopening", she pointed out.
Paunova is categorical - in at least two orders she has explicitly stated her opinion on the issue, explaining that the mechanism for investigating the prosecutor general is not related solely to the institutional place, but to the factual relationship.
"The actual acting prosecutor general can just as well hinder the investigation as the titular prosecutor general. In fact, the changes made as a result of the ECHR decision in the case “Kolevi v. Bulgaria” are in this sense. It says that an independent mechanism must be ensured, such that the acting prosecutor general or the acting one cannot interfere with the investigation against him. I cannot say what the next ad hoc prosecutor will do, but ultimately his refusals will be subject to judicial control. This mechanism is necessary. It is rather not very good, but it can be improved so as to achieve its goals,” emphasized Paunova.