site.btaProsecution Authority Finds Allegations of Supreme Cassation Court President Inadmissible

Prosecution Authority Finds Allegations of Supreme Cassation Court President Inadmissible

Sofia, May 16 (BTA) - "While we do not contest the right of Supreme Court of Cassation President Lozan Panov to make requests to State institutions, including to the Head of State, we find his allegations of bias in the work of the prosecution authority as inadmissible and unacceptable," reads a position of the Prosecution Office, submitted to the media.

It was prompted by a letter sent by Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) President Lozan Panov to the Bulgarian President on Monday, where he urged President Rumen Radev to set up a committee to look into the TZUM-gate scandal.

TZUM-gate broke out after a recent leak of secret videos which alluded to a controversial meeting between Prosecutor General Sotir Tsatsarov and Sasho Donchev, founder and CEO of the private natural gas company Overgas and publisher of the influential "Sega" daily. The meeting took place in an office of businessman and politician Georgi Gergov in the building of Sofia's TZUM department store. During the meeting, Tsatsarov allegedly complained to Donchev about cartoons of himself published in "Sega" and about BiT television and the Yes Bulgaria party. According to Tsatsarov's account of the events, Donchev asked him to put pressure on prosecutors probing a regulator in a case related to the supply and sale of natural gas.

The SCC President deliberately presents before the public the activity of the prosecution authority as being non-compliant with the law and influenced by corruption practices. In this way he discredits the prosecutors' honour and dignity, shows disrespect for their work and purposefully undermines the prestige of the profession, reads the position.

Panov's allegations are described as unfair given the good performance and the recognition by the European partners.

The officials of the Prosecution Office show respect to the work of judges and would not take the liberty to qualify their performance in a similar way. The use of such methods in order to achieve goals that have nothing to do with jurisdiction is unfair and unethical, the Prosecution Office also says.