Supreme Administrative Court Orders Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property to Provide Access to All Asset Forfeiture Decisions

The Supreme Administrative Court has rejected an appeal by the Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property (CFIAP). The proceedings date from 2022 the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation (ACF) challenged the public body to provide information about its asset forfeiture decisions.

The decision of the highest instance court puts a stop to CFIAP’s attempts to use procedural tricks to delay the disclosure of the required information for two years. The text of the decision has left no more space for the commission to manoeuvre.

“Following the final ruling, we hope that CFIAP, one of the main anti-corruption institutions in the country, will stop neglecting the law and publish its decisions on the confiscation of assets since they represent important public information,” said Lora Georgieva, a legal expert with the ACF.

ACF challenged the CFIAP’s refusal to provide information about its forfeiture decisions in April 2022. During the proceedings, it was established that the commission, in violation of the law, had declared that all its decisions to initiate confiscation proceedings were confidential. The decision to do so was taken in 2018 by Plamen Georgiev, the then-director of the CFIAP. Georgiev resigned in 2019 following the Apartmentgate scandal[1], which began with revelations by the ACF[2] and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Georgiev’s order sealed decisions about the largest share of CFIAP’s activity, employing the highest number of its staff and accounting for most of its BGN 30 million annual budget [3].

The decisions are important because they provide information about the inquiries held by CAFIAP, the facts established in the course of the inquiries, the criteria applied by officials, and the legal conclusions which have led to proceedings by the Commission.

In November 2022, the Sofia City Administrative Court ruled that CFIAP’s decisions did not represent professional secrets. According to the court, these decisions constitute public information and there is an overriding public interest in making them public. The court ordered the commission to provide full access to the decisions within 14 days. The decision was final and was not supposed to be subject to appeal[4]

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

“Court decisions are binding and should be observed by all parties concerned. However, the CFIAP disrespected the law and arbitrarily decided not to implement the court’s decision, refusing access to the public information called for by the ACF,” said Georgieva.

In March 2023, the Sofia City Administrative Court rejected CFIAP’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 the ACF’s arguments that the judgment that the CFIAP was trying to question is fully understandable and enforceable with no grounds to nullify it,” Georgieva added.

Despite the unequivocal decision of the Sofia City Administrative Court, in April 2023, the CFIAP again resorted to procedural tricks and filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Thus, the disclosure of asset forfeiture decisions was delayed by another year.

Several days ago, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision issued by the the court of first instance. The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court is final, which means there is nothing left for CFIAP but to implement the decision, something that the commission was obliged to do two years ago.

Following the publication of the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, the ACF sent a letter to CFIAP requesting the immediate disclosure of the information withheld.

ACF insists that the decisions to initiate confiscation proceedings should be published, just as those establishing conflicts of interest are. The same position was expressed by the court which stated that the information sought is public and there are no grounds for withholding it.

“The more CFIAP delays publishing these decisions, the more the suspicions are growing that its leadership is afraid of the public reaction that will follow their disclosure”, said Boyko Stankushev, director of the ACF.

“Should the commission once again fail to comply with the court decision, we will alert the court and request the imposition of a fine,” said Stankushev. “This case is of considerable public interest, and we will not allow public institutions to ignore for years their legal obligations in providing the public with timely access to important information.”