“The Constitutional Court has already had a settled case-law on similar cases, regarding the Attorney General’s request.” Theodor Slavev of the Institute for Legal Initiatives told BNR. He clarified that Ivan Geshev’s question is multifaceted, but you can see through it conceptual confusion about what separation of powers means.
"In his campaign, Prosecutor General Geshev had the opportunity to interpret the issue many times, but he clearly did not understand it, because the presidential institution is special – the immunity and the mandate are special. It is no coincidence that the constitutional legislator has provided that the President and the Vice President cannot be investigated in criminal proceedings – precisely because of such cases. "
Slavev commented in the radio "12 + 3" program on "Horizon" that there was a reason under Art. 175, para. 5 of the Judiciary Act the Supreme Judicial Council to consider the case and it could be claimed there are grounds Ivan Geshev to be removed, because the prosecution has acted illegally. The problem is that it is precisely the prosecutor's office which should define that these actions are illegal. According to him this leads to the old case – "who is empowered to investigate the Attorney General".
In connection with the prosecution records that allegedly accuse President Rumen Radev of a crime, Teodor Slavev noted that there are much unknown related to the SIM:
"It has become clear the records were made in April 2019 and at that time there was another Attorney General. Does that mean Mr. Tsatsarov has protected the presidency and other institutions? Secondly, on July 31, 2019, the Commission for Combating Corruption issued a ruling that there was no conflict of interest with Rumen Radev. Does it mean the committee has been pressurised and should have its previous chair investigated accordingly, as well as the incumbant one, if pressured in the event of a continuing crime. "
According to him, the SIMs issued were a warning to the president not to propose too radical things such as amendments to the Constitution, concerning the accountability of the Attorney General. "The records are illegal and plucked out of thin air," he said and expressed his anticipation that the presidential institution will complete the stated efforts to change the Constitution in the direction of the effectiveness of judiciary and the accountability of the Prosecutor's office.
Slavov specified it had become clear that at SANS initiative a NATO general was eavesdropped (Tsanko Stoykov – commander of the Air Force, ed. note.) and not on the initiative of the CCC, which is empowered to request the use of the SIM.
The SIM Control Bureau should be referred to in this case, to conclude how they were collected and whether there was an irregularity, Slavev answered categorically.
Prof. Nikolay Radulov – National Security Lecturer at NBU, commented to BNR, that it is not clear against whom the case, to which the records belong, was opened –do they relate to the President or the commander in chief of the Air Force.
"SIM cannot be cut or manipulated in any way, because it will mean that the conversations don't match what we're listening to. This is forbidden", Radulov said adamantly. According to him, what is heard from the prosecutor's office records may be a patchwork of separate conversations and we are not sure about the participants in the conversation.
"This case did not go to court,which means that SIM, if used at all, should serve for creating physical evidence on its basis or be destroyed within the defined period of time. If not destroyed, it is a crime, "Prof. Radulov said.
Undoubtedly the use of such materials is a crime, no matter who authorizes their disclosure, he summarized.
