Case of Illegal Construction by Mother of Politician Delyan Dobrev Reaches Supreme Administrative Court, Meanwhile National Revenue Agency Inspects Complainant

Is it possible to reconstruct a wooden cabin into a brick-and-mortar building four times the size? Can a building permit be valid if the investment project associated with it has not been approved by the chief architect and the design visa is subsequently declared null and void by the court? These are some of the questions that judges from the Supreme Administrative Court will have to review at the end of September, following a decision, which contradicts the law and lacs common sense, issued by a judge in the town of Pazardzhik

The case dates back to 2019 when Zlatka Dobreva, mother of Delyan Dobrev, who was recently nominated Minister of Energy by the political party GERB, acquired a 30 square meter cabin in the popular area Atoluka, near the village of Ravnogor in the Rhodope Mountains. Consequently, the wooden cabin was demolished. Since September 2023, intensive construction activities have been going on in complete violation of the law. So far, Bratsigovo Municipality and the public prosecution are turning a blind eye to the violations.

Абонирайте се за бюлетина на АКФ, за да научавате за най-новите ни разследвания и анализи:

С натискане на бутона потвърждавате, че сте запознати с Политиката ни за поверителност

The project is illegal due to many factors. For example, Bratsigovo Municipality issued a design visa to reconstruct the wooden chalet. That structure was, however, demolished several days later. Despite this, at the end of 2020, the municipality issued a building permit to reconstruct the non-existent chalet.

Bratsigovo Municipality failed to abide by its obligation to inform the owners of adjacent properties about Zlatka Dobreva’s plans. Still, one party was able to initiate legal proceedings within the legally designated deadline. In 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court already issued a decision on one of the legal cases, declaring the design visa null and void. The other case, which disputes the grounds for issuing a building permit to Dobreva although her investment plan had not been approved, is due to be heard on 24 September.

The case has reached the highest-instance court for the second time after the complainant appealed against a decision issued by Judge Eva Pelova from the Administrative Court – Pazardzhik. From the very beginning, Pelova conducted the proceedings in a questionable manner. After accepting several technical reports proving beyond doubt the lack of valid construction permits, Judge Pelova terminated the proceedings at the end of last year, on the grounds that the complainant had no legal interest in the case. In June 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court revoked Pelova’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. Since then, Judge Pelova has held several hearings to gather evidence not relevant to the dispute, including evidence concerning properties belonging to the complainant. Pelova’s decision was issued on 19 April. It states that Bratsigovo Municipality had followed the law while the many reports that the complainant had filed with municipal authorities and other public bodies “in no way helped to clarify the facts of the case”.

Legal experts from the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation (ACF) have reviewed the statements of opinion filed by technical experts in the case.

“The experts’ conclusions are unequivocal,” said Lora Georgieva, a legal expert with the ACF. “However, as is evident from the text of the decision, Judge Pelova, in complete disregard  of the law, did not take into account the expert opinions and came to conclusions that contravene the law and lack basic common sense.”

The experts have stated that the investment plan does not adhere to the building plan, changing the configuration and location of the building, and placing it at odds with the adjacent building and along the street. The building is located very close to the adjacent buildings and obstructs access to one of them.

The technical opinions also state that the investment project contradicts the design visa and the current building plan. In addition, the height of the building is not mentioned in the documents. Therefore, it is no surprise that all parts of the investment plan (Architecture, Construction, Electricity, Water and Sewage, Fire Safety, etc.) have not been duly reviewed and approved. The only stamp that is evident belongs to the municipal administration. For Judge Pelova, however, the investment project has been duly approved.

“A building permit is used only based on an investment plan that has been duly reviewed and approved by the competent public body – the chief architect of the municipality. In this case, the technical experts have categorically stated that the name, signature and stamp of the chief architect are missing from the documents which means that the investment plan has not been approved. Despite all this, the municipality went ahead and issued a building permit,” said Georgieva.

Days after lodging the appeal against Judge Pelova’s decision with the Supreme Administrative Court, the lawyers representing the complainant received a curious letter from Katya Valkova, an inspector with the Plovdiv branch of the National Revenue Agency. Valkova asked the legal firm to provide her with the legal services contract signed with the complainant. She further stated that if no contract had been signed, the company should provide written explanations about the kinds of services provided and the fees charged for them.

“The actions of the National Revenue Service are inexplicable. The secrecy of information and documents exchanged between individuals and their legal representatives is protected by law. The two parties have autonomy in agreeing on the legal fees owed based on a legally defined minimum. Pro-bono work is also permitted when defending the interests of people with financial difficulties, related parties, relatives and other legal professionals,” said Georgieva. “The right to legal representation is protected by the Bulgarian Constitution therefore, in this case, the actions of the representative of the National Revenue Agency can only be qualified as an attempt to exert institutional pressure on an individual who is challenging unlawful decisions by public bodies serving the interests of the mother of an influential politician.”

Throughout the legal saga, the Dobrev family have continued the construction activity – another fact that makes the almost-finished building illegal.

“It is not possible for a building permit to enter into force if it is being disputed in court,” said Georgieva. “This raises another question for the mayor of Bratsigovo: why has she failed to act to stop the illegal construction activity?”

The Directorate for National Construction Control (NCSD) and the Regional Directorate for National Construction Control have repeatedly called on Bratsigovo’s mayor Nadezhda Kazakova to abide by her duties and stop the illegal construction, yet to no avail. In a letter from 1 February 2024, the NCSD gave the mayor ten days to issue an order to stop the illegal construction and prevent access to the building site. In a written response to the NCSD, the mayor claimed that she had issued such an order on 28 March. In April, several days after the appointment of the interim Minister of Regional Development and Public Works, the director of the NCSD was removed from her post. On 9 May, Nadezhda Kazakova, the mayor of Bratsigovo, issued a new order to repeal the one she had issued on 28 March (to stop the illegal construction).

On 18 June, the complainant initiated another legal case, challenging Kazakova’s order from 9 May. Two days later, the case was already randomly assigned to a well-known recipient – Judge Eva Pelova.

ACF continues to monitor the case and will review the upcoming proceedings at the Supreme Administrative Court. It is unacceptable that despite such clear facts the law has been blatantly violated to serve the interests of the powerful.

 

 


Сподели: