What is the logic of the guarantor of Blagomir Kotsev's arrest? Will they ask for Asen Vassilev's immunity? And what are the violations in the process of detaining the Varna mayor? Conversation with lawyer Ina Lulcheva:
The arrest of Varna Mayor Blagomir Kotsev, municipal councilors Nikolay Stefanov and Yordan Keteliev (all three from the PP) and businessman Ivaylo Marinov is another case in Bulgaria, called by lawyers a "brutal legal act". The four were detained on charges of soliciting a bribe, but without evidence for this. This prosecutorial arbitrariness has shocked society.
How can it believe that the implementation of the law is carried out impartially and fairly, when what we are witnessing is a classic way to replace the vote of citizens? How can it believe that anti-corruption institutions work independently and competently, when they begin to act with all their might only under certain circumstances and only against certain public figures?
The "Renew Europe" group in the European Parliament, of which "Continuing Change" is a part, strongly condemned the increasing attack on democratic institutions and the rule of law in Bulgaria and described the arrest of Varna Mayor Blagomir Kotsev as "politically motivated". The group's position states:
"The arrest of Mayor Kotsev is part of a broader pattern of state capture in Bulgaria, where the General Prosecutor's Office and the Anti-Corruption Commission are increasingly becoming instruments of political pressure, rather than impartial guardians of justice. Europe cannot remain silent when the rule of law is threatened in our Union."
What is happening is a mockery of the accused, a mockery of justice and a violation of the Constitution. And the arguments for this add humiliating touches to the public image of the state. What are the violated legal standards in the preliminary phase of the trial? Who is the competent court in this case, what does a person with immunity mean, when is the preventive measure "detention in custody" applied, are we learning the truth from witnesses, and more. Emi Baruch talks about these issues with lawyer Ina Lulcheva.
Let's start with the preventive measure.
Ina Lulcheva: The preventive measure is not a punishment. The imposition of a preventive measure - detention, arrest, should be applied only in exceptional cases, when the normal development of the process cannot be ensured in any other way. This is a requirement of the European Convention and modern criminal procedural law.
The law itself says that it is not mandatory to impose a preventive measure on every accused. And for economic crimes, it is absolutely unacceptable. Dangerous people are detained in custody. And Blagomir Kotsev is not a dangerous person.
Some time ago, there were two or three cases against Sofia Mayor Stefan Sofyanski of no less public interest. But it never occurred to anyone that he could detain him.
There is no dispute about what I am saying. This is accepted by our theory. This is also accepted by the Strasbourg Court, whose practice is mandatory for Bulgarian institutions.
But due to the unlawful application of this measure by Bulgarian institutions, Bulgaria has been repeatedly condemned. Despite this, the outrage continues.
Who is the competent court in this case? Why is it being heard in Sofia, since it is assumed that the crime was committed in Varna?
Ina Lulcheva: Cases against people with immunity are being heard in Sofia. But there are two things that are completely absurd. The judge said: "SCC is competent in the case, because from the very beginning the investigation was conducted against a person with immunity."
First, this is not true. Cases are not filed AGAINST someone. They are formed FOR the investigation of a crime. If the court had recognized that there is no person with immunity, it would have inevitably assumed that all the actions that have been carried out to date were by an incompetent body. If the Sofia City Court is not competent, the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office is not incompetent either. And everything loses value from the moment of its formation. They were afraid of this very thing and that is precisely why they invented the figure of the person with immunity.
Secondly, since it is being conducted from the very beginning "against" a person with immunity, why has no one asked for this person's immunity.
How do they allow themselves to conduct a case against a person with immunity from November until now? Don't they realize that these are illegal actions?
The Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court prohibit any investigation against a person with immunity without the permission of the National Assembly. Any actions before filing an indictment that in any way affect the criminal immunity of a person with immunity are inadmissible.
For this to happen, the prosecutor in the case must write a request to the Prosecutor General, who will then submit a request to the parliament. There is no such thing. There will never be one. If they wanted to, they would have done it by now. But they are afraid. The case against the Varna mayor and the case against the Sofia deputy mayor were produced as if by a matrix - with repeating elements: both the short-term detention, the high posts, and the court's motives are the same.
Will Assen Vassilev's immunity be requested?
Ina Lulcheva: My hypothesis is that they will not do it. Because if they ask him to, they must present the evidence for this in the National Assembly. And then the deputies will get acquainted with everything. And it will become clear that nothing confirms the accusation's thesis. It will become clear that it is based on gossip and rumors, as well as that this is bullying and political persecution of opposition leaders. And one more thing that shows the mistaken construction of the accusation: it is alleged that the accused created an Organized Crime Group (OCG) in July with the intention of committing a crime (the bribe was demanded in August) and disbanded it in November. The investigation began in November. The question is: why are we detaining someone who stopped committing a crime 8 months ago?
The prosecution answers: because there is a danger that he will commit a crime. But the law, as well as interpretative decisions of the Supreme Court, say that the danger of committing a crime must be inferred from evidence in the case. There is no such evidence. An investigation has been going on for eight months, interrogations have been conducted. And they have not proven anything.
In all the interrogations of Plamenka Dimitrova - the woman who filed the report against Mayor Blagomir Kotsev, the mayor is not mentioned at all. Plamenka Dimitrova speaks against Diyan Ivanov and against Nikolay Stefanov. Diyan Ivanov was questioned on July 8 and 9. The fact that he was not brought in as a defendant, but only gave testimony during the organized action, already raises questions of a different order.
What is the logic of the guarantor?
Ina Lulcheva: To ask the court to order the removal of Blagomir Kotsev from office. This is a demonstration of the classic way of changing election results.
As Valerie Ayer, president of "Renew Europe" in the EP, wrote, this is "open use of judicial institutions to persecute political opponents". And the only thing they are afraid of is public pressure.
***
Today, July 14, a protest in support of Blagomir Kotsev is scheduled in front of the municipality in Varna. On July 16, the protest will be in front of the Palace of Justice in Sofia.