Another “slap case” (SLAPP)* against journalists – why right now Foreign Minister Kalin Stoyanov has filed a civil defamation lawsuit worth BGN 65,000 against journalists from BIRD.bg Atanas Chobanov and Dimitar Stoyanovhow are they alike ““slap cases” with the threats against magistrates and why there is a constant double standard in the prosecution – commented on “The Network” on the “Hristo Botev” program Adv. Andrey Yankulov, expert in legal matters at AKF (Anti-corruption Fund).
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. My opinion is that persons in high government positions would not follow and it is a manifestation of bad taste to file similar cases against journalists, who have made publications concerning the potential abuse of power or any corrupt behavior of the relevant person in a high public office.
The appropriate response to this is a timely, accurate, and substantive rebuttal of the relevant journalistic material, 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 rebuttalit has long been floating in the public space what is the attitude of the management of Ministry of the Interior on the occasion of these publications, because they were left and 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, 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 has really fallen into such a state, and would seek such evidence, and it would be a negative description of his own personality as a man upon whom are devolved such grave duties arising from his office.’
The commissions “Notary” and others in the National Assembly
“The Notary Commission started off with a bang only in the first week or two, then things went into a tailspin.” People in high public positions, obliged to appear, refused to appear before the National Assembly. This attenuation can be explained by the disassembly of the “Assembly” as well all the processes that have been going on since the moment 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 the Interior, the entire manual. Because until the time of disassembly of the “Assembly”, the entire leadership acted in complete synchrony on all cases of public attention, where potential responsibility was sought from the Ministry of Internal Affairs – there was no behavior of these leaders distinguishing them from the others.
The entire behavior of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the “Notary” case is extremely worrying, 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 associate of the Ministry of the Interior.
The withholding of this information, juxtaposed with the fact that it was partially stated by the press office of Ministry of the Interior, that former director of 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. I.e. the behavior towards the connections of MIA 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 MIA officials, remained again without comment from the MIA. These are data that have been known to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for years, and they have now allegedly started some checks.
Comparing these circumstances, leads us to the only possible conclusion that the overall behavior of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs points to complete reluctance to share any information surrounding 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 the group of this person at its disposal, 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 corruption behavior in the Customs Agency. Where the chairman of DANS in the parliamentary committee at a public hearing gave any information from operational development to his employees, which served to initiate the criminal proceedings in which the head of the Customs Agency and other alleged smugglers were detained. Neither investigative secrecy stopped him, nor any other circumstances, which were otherwise formally pointed out as an obstacle to other institutions giving similar information to the committee on the activities of the “Notary”.
The double standard
“We have seen so many times this double standard in so many cases. Of course – when there is a political motive in conducting a criminal proceeding, then we see a total violation of investigative secrecy, of any procedural rules – and that taken by the investigators themselves and leading the criminal proceedings. Whether by them personally or with their knowledge and consent is of no importance. All such cases back in time have ended in the same way – after a time, when the subject has achieved its goal politically with the help of the media, the subject dies down and along with it 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 “slap cases” and threats against magistrates
“The scheme is akin to threatening and creating anxiety whether for a journalist or a magistrate to exercise his duties – whether to expose corruption, as in the case of the journalists from “BIRD.bg”, or in the case of judge Tsarigradska to rule on cases based on internal conviction and on the basis of the law. Without it serving as an indirect threat to all the rest of the respective guilds. Because each “case-slap” leads to a real threat to the other journalists, who put themselves in the place of their colleague and ask themselves whether similar actions will not be started against them, which are associated with many difficulties, even purely logistical ones. Even if the case fails and the minister cannot convict the journalists of “BIRD.bg”, the very conduct of the case is associated with many difficulties for them – it deprives them of resources, time, etc. I.e. all this leads to difficulty in the activity 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 he is in terms of the power institutions. 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 ACF investigated and The Eight Dwarfs and the case study with “The Notary”. Now, whether we will return to this same situation again – 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 media topic, a topic that did not find any reflection and institutional reaction, accordingly the topic for the media was taboo. This is because we can answer the question 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.
* SLAPP – strategic lawsuits againts public participation.*
* The text was republished by BNR.
Tags: Andrey Yankulov ACF Persons high government positions file slap cases journalists
-
