Judge Ivaylo Yosifov claims that he was pressured by a member of the Supreme Judicial Council because of his desire to apply for a competition to become the head of the Administrative Court in Ruse. He says that at one of the last meetings of the Judicial College, he waited for hours in front of the door of the meeting room to be given the opportunity to officially talk about this attempt at influence. Since he was not allowed to speak, Yosifov spoke about the case on Nova TV.
"I am a judge and deputy chairman of the Administrative Court - Ruse. In this capacity, I consider cases filed by citizens and organizations against administrative acts. In this sense, the independence of the judge is the last defense of citizens against the government," Yosifov presented his duties as a magistrate.
And he briefly presented the facts regarding his participation in the competition procedure, because of which he claims that he was pressured: "I am a participant in a procedure for the selection of an administrative head – president of the court, opened by a decision of the Judicial College of the SJC at the end of 2024. I submitted my documents, applied a concept and recommendations from academic circles, since I am a lecturer. I expected a result. There is another colleague from my court who is participating in the competition".
In his words, the pressure "came on January 15 last year". "I was in my office in the court building when the acting president – Judge Dian Vassilev came to me. He was dressed in a robe - he had obviously heard cases before that and looked worried. He told me: “Ivo, I have bad news“. I asked him what it was, and he answered me: “Drago (editor's note: member of the Judicial College of the Supreme Judicial Council Dragomir Koyadzhikov) said that you should give up and withdraw your application“, Yosifov said.
However, he refused to withdraw from the competition procedure. “Judge Vassilev told me that he had warned Koyadzhikov that I probably would not withdraw. Then he was told that I would receive zero votes at the interview at the Judicial College“, Yosifov said. And he added: “My reaction was one of shock and indignation. This is a matter of professional dignity - a judge can lose a competition procedure, but not his dignity. I filed a report - initially to the General Directorate of Anti-Corruption, and then the case was also examined by the Commission for Combating Corruption, which is currently closed. After an inspection, it issued a statement on August 18 last year that there was evidence of a general crime committed by a person falling within the scope of the law.
Dragomir Koyadzhikov was also asked for comment. In his position, he stated: "I respect free and impartial media and as a lawyer I believe that objective and proven facts should be the basis of every public statement. In this particular case, the relevant investigation was conducted by the competent authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria. It ended with a termination act, after no violations were found. I would have stated the same on air, but I am prevented from participating. I believe that Nova TV, as an objective media, will adhere to proven institutional facts. My position is that all discussions about the judicial system need to be conducted responsibly, without subjectivity and with respect for the truth".
Judge Yosifov emphasized that the Judicial College of the SJC "has denied him something that he received on NOVA - publicity". "After repeated postponements, on March 24 of this year, a hearing was scheduled for me, Judge Vassilev, Mr. Koyadzhikov and another colleague from our court, who could indirectly confirm what was stated in my signal. I postponed the cases they were considering so that at 9:30 I could be in front of the courtroom. I waited for six hours in front of the hall and was not allowed in. I watched the debate on a screen in an adjacent hall. And so I realized that I was not trying to defend my independence, but trying to “hurt“ members of the college", he stressed.
And he was categorical that the reason for the refusal to be heard was that "publicity is too inconvenient for them". "The reason is that if I am heard officially, they will have to take a position and take action, for example - institutional protection", he explained.