The schemes with the cases of slaps and against judge Tsarigradska are similar – they scare the rest

© Velko Angelov

Another slap in the face case (SLAPP – strategic cases against public participation) against journalists – why right now Foreign Minister Kalin Stoyanov filed a civil defamation lawsuit worth BGN 65,000 against journalists from BIRD.bg Atanas Chobanov and Dimitar Stoyanov, how are the cases similar” slaps” with the threats against magistrates and why there is a constant double standard in the prosecution. This was commented in an interview with Nicoleta Atanasova in the program “The Network” on the “Hristo Botev” program of the BNR, lawyer Andrey Yankulov, an expert on legal issues at the Anti-Corruption Fund (AKF). The title is “Diary”.

What is the life and legal logic for such a claim to be filed right now

I do not find any practical and legal logic in taking such a risk. It is my opinion that it would be inappropriate and in poor taste for persons in high public office to file such cases against journalists who have made publications concerning the potential abuse of power or any corrupt behavior of the respective person in high public office.

if the person in a high state position believes that there are some circumstances presented that do not correspond to reality. Here there was no timely rebuttal, these posts were left without any comment. And at some point the minister decided to refute and file this claim.

It speaks worse for him. Not to mention that here are described damages that the minister will have to prove in the course of this proceeding – how he is in a bad emotional state, unstable, fell as a result of these publications. That they have negatively affected his status in life, which, going back to what position he holds and what responsibilities he has, does not put him in a favorable light either. It speaks rather ill of him, if he really fell into such a condition, and would seek such proofs, and it would be a negative description of his own personality as a man upon whom were devolved such grave duties arising from his office.

The “Notary” and other commissions in the National Assembly

The “Notary” commission got off to a great start only in the first week or two, then things went into a tailspin. People in senior public positions, who are required to appear, refused to appear before the National Assembly (NA). This slowdown can be explained by the dismantling of the “assembly”, as well as all the processes that have been going on since it became clear that a new government in the same format cannot exist.

It is important to emphasize the behavior of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the entire leadership. Because until the moment when the “assembly” was dismantled, the entire leadership acted in full synchrony on all cases of public attention, where potential responsibility was sought from the Ministry of the Interior – there was no behavior of these leaders distinguishing them from the others.

because under even absurd reasons such as the protection of national security and that a state secret would be revealed, they refuse to provide one piece of information that was normal to provide at least to the National Assembly – was the Martin Bojanov in question an associate of the Ministry of the Interior.

The concealment of this information, comparing it with the fact that it was partially stated by the press center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that a former director of the GDBOP had previously made contact with Martin Bojanov. However, no one explains what this contact was, what was the reason, what was the nature of this relationship. Nothing is said. In other words, the behavior towards the connections of the Ministry of Internal Affairs officials with the Martin Bojanov in question, which became public knowledge from ACF, as they were his guards and did other services for him in their capacity as Ministry of Internal Affairs officials, remained again without comment from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. These are data that have been known to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for years, and they have now allegedly started some checks.

By comparing these circumstances, it leads us to the only possible conclusion that the overall behavior of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs points to a complete reluctance to share any information about this case.

Let’s compare the behavior of the Ministry of the Interior in the “Notary” case, where the Ministry of the Interior has a lot of information about this person’s group, but none of it was shared even at the level of a parliamentary committee. Let’s compare this behavior with the behavior from this week of the management of DANS in the other case – about the potential corrupt behavior in the “Customs” Agency. Where the chairman of the DANS in the parliamentary committee at a public hearing gave any information from the operational development of his employees, which served to initiate the criminal proceedings in which the head of the Customs Agency and other alleged smugglers were detained. Neither the investigative secrecy stopped him, nor any other circumstances that were otherwise formally pointed out as an obstacle to other institutions giving similar information to the commission about the activities of the “Notary”.

The double standard

We have seen this double standard so many times in so many cases. It is clear – when there is a political motive in the conduct of a criminal proceeding, then we see a total violation of investigative secrecy, of any procedural rules – and it is carried out by the investigators and those leading the criminal proceedings themselves. Whether by them personally or with their knowledge and consent is of no importance.

All such cases back in time ended in the same way – after a while, when she achieved her goal politically with the help of the media, the topic died down and parallel to her, the legal case itself. Nobody understands whether the proceedings have been terminated, whether the persons have been acquitted, nobody understands anything. The pattern has been the same over the years.

The similarity between slapping cases and threats against magistrates

The scheme is similar to a threat and creating concerns, whether for a journalist or a magistrate, in order to exercise his duties – whether to reveal corruption, as in the case of the journalists from BIRD.bg, or in the case of judge Tsarigradska – to rule on the cases of inner conviction and based on the law. Without it serving as an indirect threat to all the rest of the respective guilds.

Even if the case fails and the minister cannot convict the journalists from BIRD.bg, the very conduct of it is connected with many difficulties for them – it deprives them of resources, time, etc. That is, all this leads to difficulty in the activities of the affected person and, accordingly, to a threat to other representatives of his guild.

Why the media is silent, like the institutions

For me, the answer has to be found where it is in relation to the institutions of power. The original source is the same. The reluctance of the institutions to deal with a given case is absolutely reflected in the reluctance of the major media to deal with it. This is how things looked when the ACF was investigating both the “Eight Dwarfs” and the case with the Notary.

Whether we will return to this same situation – I don’t know, but before there was complete synchronicity between institutional and media silence and behavior. The topic of the institutions was also the topic of the media, a topic that did not find any reflection and institutional reaction, accordingly the topic of the media was taboo.

This is because we can answer the question of how public power is exercised in Bulgaria – one of the elements of the exercise of power is the media sector.

About the threats to judge Tsarigradska and the silence of the institutions, as well as whether the “head” of those who created the dependencies between the institutions and the “family” in the prosecutor’s office will be discovered, listen in the sound file.

The column “Analyses” presents different points of view, the opinions expressed do not necessarily coincide with the editorial position of “Dnevnik”.