Lawyer Alexander Kashamov from the “Access to Information“ program, presented data from the disclosed information on how much Delyan Peevski's security costs from the NSO in the “Hello, Bulgaria“ studio, after this information was obtained through legal means.
According to him, the data covers a 10-month period - from January to October 2025, since the application was submitted in November and the accounting department at that time could only provide information for the previous 10 months.
The application was submitted by citizen Stoycho Stoychev from Dobrich, and the “Access to Information“ program provided him with legal assistance. Kashumov stressed that the organization often assists citizens, journalists and non-governmental organizations in cases of access to public information.
According to him, the NSO initially claimed that this information was a state secret. During the court hearing, it even became clear that the names of the departments in the service are also treated as a secret and therefore, instead of “Accounting“ or “Human Resources“, designations such as 04, 05 and 06 are used.
The total cost of Delyan Peevski's security for the indicated period is 226,680 leva, said Kashumov. According to his calculations, this is equivalent to about 210 minimum wages for last year, when the minimum wage was 1,077 leva.
Of this amount, over 182,000 leva are for remuneration and bonuses. The lawyer specified that overtime work in the NSO is not paid separately, as it is covered by a permanent bonus. There are also expenses for business trips.
Kashamov commented that it is not entirely clear how many people were involved in security. According to him, a sergeant in the NSO last year probably received about 3,000 leva net, and an officer - about 4,000 leva.
According to the lawyer, the court decision is a precedent and can serve as a basis for further requests to the NSO. However, it does not automatically mean that similar information from other institutions will be provided without lawsuits.
The lawyer gave the example of young doctors who requested information about the remuneration of directors of directorates, deputy ministers and the leadership in the health system. According to him, they received data for various positions from the Ministry of Health, but the Council of Ministers refused information for the ministers and deputy ministers, arguing that it was about protected personal data. A lawsuit has already been filed in this case.
“The king gives, the tyrant does not“, Kashumov commented.
He pointed out that there are two ways to make access to information on state spending real - easy and difficult. The easy one is for the legislator to clearly record that such information is published. The difficult one is through court precedents in each individual case.
According to Kashumov, Stoycho Stoychev intends to request additional information - since when Delyan Peevski has been protected, on what grounds, by virtue of what signals and what is the full cost of his protection. It is also possible that the cost of the security provided by the Ministry of Interior will be requested.
The lawyer also commented on the reaction of Delyan Peevski, who after the decision stated that the information should be open to everyone. According to Kashumov, in theory, MPs can have more access to information because they control the executive branch, but in practice they often receive refusals and have to file lawsuits.
He stated that during the case it became clear that last year Delyan Peevski had received information from the National Security Service in order to refute public allegations about the cost of his security. This information was disclosed through the press center of “DPS - New Beginning“. According to Kashamov, when this evidence was presented in court, the NSO began to deny that they had provided such information.
“Obviously there are narrower and shorter channels“, the lawyer commented.
Kashhamov emphasized that not all information about security can be provided freely, because there are figures for whom it is logical to be protected - for example, prime ministers and former prime ministers. In this particular case, however, the public question was why exactly Delyan Peevski was protected, how much does this cost and on the basis of what signals the decision was made.
The lawyer reported that only through the “Access to Information“ program, 139 cases of denied information under the Access to Public Information Act were received. According to him, the real number in the country is higher. In 2025, about 18,000 applications were submitted, with rejections being about 4%, but often affecting very important information.
Kashamov also said that Stoychev himself called him a few days after his application was received at the National Security Agency because the National Revenue Agency had begun an inspection of his company. According to the lawyer, this happened last fall, shortly after the application was submitted.
“In my opinion and for every citizen, this is no coincidence“, said Kasamov.
The question of the CPC archives and the use of special intelligence tools against judges was also raised. The topic was raised against the backdrop of the announcement that Plamen Tonchev had been proposed as the new chairman of the State Agency “National Security“.
Kashamov said that the problem with monitoring and wiretapping was established by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in a case led by him and lawyer Mihail Ekimdzhiev from Plovdiv. The decision is from the beginning of 2022, but in his words, “absolutely nothing is being done“ on this issue.
He explained that according to documents, the information collected with the SRC should be destroyed if it does not serve to prove crimes. In practice, however, according to him, it is not clear whether this is happening.
Kashamov pointed out that after the closure of the CPC in early February this year without clear motives, the serious question arises of where the commission's archive went. According to him, there have already been cases won under the Access to Public Information Act, but the successor to the CPC - the National Audit Office - responds that it does not have the information sought. There are also letters from the General Directorate of Public Administration and Control that they do not have these materials.
“If they are not in the National Audit Office, if they are not in the General Directorate of Public Administration and Control, then the big question is - who owns them? Is it in private hands? Is it in the National Security Service? Or in some third place?“, Kashumov asked.
He admitted that part of the archive may be in the State Security Agency, since when the CPC was disbanded, part of the structure was transferred there. The lawyer did not rule out the possibility that some of the sensitive information was formally destroyed, but in reality fell into private hands.
According to him, the new chairman of the State Security Agency must give a clear answer where this archive is located, because it is a huge array of information collected since 2018 - from the creation of the CPC, through the CPC, to its subsequent closure and transfer of functions to other institutions.