The Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF) presented the findings of its annual monitoring report on the investigations of high-level corruption in Bulgaria “Anti-corruption Institutions: Escalating Problems.” The report aims to provide a detailed answer to the question of the results of the fight against political corruption in Bulgaria in the last six years. See more here.

In a live stream today, the Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF) presented the results of its study of the outcome of the last parliamentary election in April 2021. The study subjects the official election results to statistical analysis to answer the following questions:

• What is the size of the controlled and paid vote?
• Where are the polling stations at the greatest risk of controlled and paid vote?
• Which political parties received the most votes in the polling stations at risk of controlled and paid vote?

The present analysis will explain why the proposal to introduce the figure of a “prosecutor for investigating the Prosecutor General,” put forward by MPs of the ruling majority in Bulgaria through a bill that was hastily approved at first reading, does not satisfy the criteria for independence from the investigated party, and, therefore, does not ensure compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kolevi v. Bulgaria. In addition to lacking the required guarantees for independence, the bill suffers from a number of other shortcomings, which may lead to risks of factual or legal impediments to any potential investigative proceedings against the Prosecutor General, or, alternatively, may provide opportunities for unjust prosecution of the latter for purely political reasons.

You can download the full analyses from here.

You can download a summary of the analyses from here.

This analysis proposes a concept for addressing some of the main problems of Bulgaria’ criminal justice system through the powers of the prosecutorial institution, by:

1) abolishing the factual manifestations of the “general review of legality” function of the Prosecutor’s Office as obsolete, dating from the totalitarian state period.

2) envisaging forms of external procedural control over the currently completely uncontrolled conduct of the criminal proceedings – the decision whether, against whom, when, and for what to press charges of a general nature crime.

This control must be exercised by the court and should concern both the cases in which the holder of the power to accuse – the Prosecutor’s Office, exercises it and those in which it does not.

See the full text here.

The facts, a legal analysis, conclusions, and an appeal to the institutions

This report marks the beginning of annual independent civic monitoring of cases of (alleged) corruption crimes and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government. The monitoring consists of two parts: (1) analysis of 40 key criminal cases in the pre-trial and trial phase for the period 2014-2019 and (2) assessment of decisions on signals of conflict of interest of the Commission for Combating Corruption and Confiscation of Illegal the acquired property (KPKONPI) for 2019. The report provides a concrete answer to the question of what are the results of the fight against political corruption in Bulgaria in the last five years.