Author: Adela Katchaounova
Editor: Assoc. Prof. Hristo Hristev, J.D.
Translation in English: Sophia Kleinsasser
Graphic design: Angelina Mikova, Yoan Ivanov, Radoslav Stoyanov
Published by: Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
A 2024 study on the use of special surveillance means (SSM) against judges, prosecutors, and investigators was prompted by events that exposed networks of influence within the judiciary. More than a year later, no progress has been made—no one involved in these networks has been implicated. Nor have the perpetrators and instigators of Martin “The Notary” Bozhanov’s murder been identified, charged, or punished. Bozhanov was alleged to be an influential broker in the judiciary who owned a private club used by magistrates for informal networking. There have also been no developments regarding the previous exposure of another ring of influence in the judicial system with links to former investigator Petyo “The Euro” Petrov and a restaurant known as The Eight Dwarfs.
The murder of Bozhanov, known to have led or participated in an organized criminal group exerting control over the judicial system, caused a serious public outcry. His murder and suspicions of a cover-up, including on the part of state institutions, raised questions about the extent to which magistrates are protected and whether the judiciary is susceptible to pressure. At the same time, Judge Tsarigradska publicly stated in 2024 that over 150 authorization permits for the use of SSM against magistrates had been issued over the last few years. This raises grave concerns that special surveillance means—wiretapping, tracking, surveillance, etc.—could be used as a tool to exert pressure, compromise, or even manipulate magistrates, thereby undermining the very concept of judicial independence.
The use of SSM against magistrates is a threat to the independence of the judiciary. Magistrates should make decisions based only on the law and the facts, without outside pressure or fear. If SSM is used against them, especially without serious or justified grounds, this may force them to comply or make decisions under duress. It is essential to know whether decisions made regarding SSM were lawful and justified, and whether there has been any abuse.
This publication was made possible through the financial support of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.
