site.btaSupreme Administrative Court Obliges Unlawfully Acquired Assets Forfeiture Commission to Publicize Its Decisions

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) has finally rejected an appeal by the Commission for Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets (CFIAA) in a case initiated and won by the Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF) back in 2022. 

This brings to an end a two-year period in which CFIAA resorted to a series of procedural tricks to avoid complying with the court ruling obliging it to disclose information to the ACF. The SAC ruling leaves no further procedural steps for CFIAA to take.

"We hope that after the final ruling of the SAC, CFIAA - one of the main institutions called upon to implement the state anti-corruption policy - will put an end to the two-year neglect of the legal order in the country and publish the publicly relevant information about its decisions on confiscation of assets," said Lora Georgieva from the ACF legal team. 

In April 2022, the ACF filed a lawsuit against CFIAA after the commission refused to provide access to its decisions to initiate proceedings for confiscation of illegally acquired property. During the lawsuit, it became clear that the commission, in violation of the law, had declared all its decisions to initiate forfeiture proceedings confidential. The decision was taken in 2018 by the then director of the commission Plamen Georgiev. He resigned in 2019 following the “Apartmentgate” scandal, which began with revelations by ACF and Free Europe. Georgiev's order hides decisions in the most voluminous area of CFIAA's activity, which employs the largest number of its staff and accounts for the largest part of its BGN 30 million annual budget.

The decisions are important because they can clarify what checks have been carried out by the state body, the facts established based on them, the criteria and the legal conclusions that have led to the initiation of a lawsuit that strongly affects the property of citizens.

As early as November 2022, the Administrative Court of Sofia City (ACSC) ruled that the decisions of CFIAA cannot be official secrets. According to the court, these decisions constitute public information and there is an overriding public interest in their disclosure. The court ordered the commission to provide full access to them within 14 days after the court's decision takes effect. The court's decision was final and not subject to appeal. 

However, instead of complying with the court decision, CFIAA filed an action to declare it null and void and, in violation of the law, arbitrarily stopped the provision of the information sought by ACF. 

"The judgment is binding on all concerned. However, CFIAA demonstrated disrespect for the law and arbitrarily decided not to implement the court's decision and not to disclose the public information sought," Georgieva commented.

In March 2023, ACSC rejected CFIAA's claim and refused to declare the judgment null and void. According to the court, the commission's claim that the judgment was "incomprehensible" was completely unfounded.

"The panel fully accepted ACF's arguments that the judgment whose nullity is claimed is fully understandable and enforceable and there are no defects leading to nullity," Georgieva added.

Despite the clear decision of ACSC, in April 2023, CFIAA again resorted to procedural tricks by appealing the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. Thus, the disclosure of asset forfeiture decisions was delayed by another year. 

In early July, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the order of the court of first instance terminating the proceedings. The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court is final, which means that there is nothing left for CFIAA but to implement the court's decision - something the commission was obliged to do two years ago. 

Immediately after the publication of the SAC ruling, ACF sent a letter to CFIAA requesting the immediate implementation of the judgment of 14.11.2022. 

According to ACF, decisions to initiate confiscation proceedings should be published in the same way as those to establish a conflict of interest. As the court has ruled, "The information sought is public information and there are no grounds for denying access to it." 

"The more CFIAA delays publishing these decisions, the more the suspicions that its management is afraid of the public reaction when they are disclosed", commented ACF Director Boyko Stankushev.

"If the commission once again deviates from its legal obligation to comply with the court decision, we will alert the court and seek a fine. This is a case of crucial public interest and we cannot let institutions ignore the law for years and shirk their duty to provide the public with timely access to significant public information," he added.