[ad_1]
The Vidin Administrative Court has initiated proceedings for non-compliance with a judicial act against the head of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, Iliana Kirilova. This follows from Judge Antonia Genadieva’s order of August 20, which can be viewed on the court’s website. The process against Kirilova is the non-execution of a judicial decision in a case of access to public information, won by the civil movement “Boets”.
Since last summer, the movement has been trying to obtain information about Ivan Geshev’s fiscal work as a regular prosecutor. And after the refusal of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office to provide all the requested information, he presented and won a case in the Vidin Administrative Court, reveals in. “Now”.
However, the city prosecutor did not implement this decision, it is clear from the judge’s order. Judge Genadieva is now setting a 14-day period for Prosecutor Kirilova in which she can give written explanations and provide evidence of why she has not complied with the effective court decision.
Furthermore, the judge ordered that the head of the city prosecutor’s office be informed that the proceedings against him could be fined from 200 to 2,000 BGN. BOEC won a case against the city prosecutor’s office, which refused to provide data on how many of Geshev for crimes against the financial, tax and pension systems and how many of them have ended in conviction, specifying the number of agreements.
BOEC also asks how many settlements illegally acquired properties have been seized or confiscated and in what amount. There are the same questions about Geshev’s cases against organized crime. He also wonders what is the number of accusations presented by the prosecutor Ivan Geshev since his assignment to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office in 2009 until July 31, 2019.
In the reasons for providing this information, the City Prosecutor’s Office states that it does not exist in a systematic way, however, the court does not agree with this argument. According to the magistrates, the data is available in the unified information system maintained by the prosecution.
“In this sense, it could not be considered justified that such information is not created and is not kept in the SGP, since its creation and maintenance is mandatory,” the decision reads.
“Once such information exists, there is no obstacle for the applicant to have access to it,” the court concluded, and after this decision, however, the City Attorney’s Office issued a second denial to provide the information requested by BOEC .
Sofia, Bulgaria
[ad_2]
