Bulgarian Authorities Under Fire for Irregularities in Surveillance Material Approval

A recent series of incidents has raised concerns about the risk of surveillance abuses in Bulgaria, prompting calls for stronger guarantees against such breaches.

European Court of Human Rights Ruling

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on several occasions that Bulgarian authorities have failed to provide adequate safeguards against surveillance abuses. This lack of transparency and accountability has led to a loss of trust between investigative agencies and judges, hindering progress in high-profile corruption cases.

Controversial Amendments to Special Surveillance Devices Act

In August 2013, Parliament overrode a presidential veto to pass amendments to the Special Surveillance Devices Act, which had been opposed by the president due to concerns about judicial independence and the powers of the newly created Bureau for Control Over Special Surveillance Devices.

State Agency for National Security (SANS)

The State Agency for National Security (SANS) was established in 2008 with significant resources to combat high-level corruption and organized crime. However, its initial period was marked by controversy, and after only two years, a new government revised its mission and reduced its staff and budget, transforming it into a security agency focused primarily on counter-intelligence matters.

Concerns about SANS Supervision

SANS activities are supervised by a special parliamentary committee with rotating membership, which has been criticized for lacking expertise in the field of national security. This lack of transparency and accountability has raised concerns about its effectiveness in combating corruption and organized crime.

Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets

The Law on Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets, which came into force in November 2012, aims to tackle corruption by allowing authorities to seize assets without criminal or administrative liability. However, the law’s implementation has been slow, and prosecutors and judicial officials have raised concerns about the burden of proof required to forfeit assets.

Asset Forfeiture Commission and Prosecutor’s Office Collaboration

The Asset Forfeiture Commission and the Prosecutor’s Office have agreed to establish joint teams to investigate discrepancies between income and assets in cases under investigation. However, the lack of trust between investigative agencies and judges has hindered progress in high-profile corruption cases.

Public Perception of Corruption Measures

A recent Eurobarometer survey found that only 12% of respondents in Bulgaria believe that measures against corruption are applied impartially and without ulterior motives, compared to an EU average of 33%.

Judiciary Concerns

The independence and integrity of Bulgaria’s judiciary have also been called into question. Specialized international bodies such as UNCAC and GRECO have criticized the country’s legal framework for failing to provide adequate safeguards against corruption-related offenses.

Expert Recommendations

Experts warn that legislative reforms alone are not sufficient to combat corruption, and that administrative reform is needed to enhance inter-agency coordination, streamline data collection, and promote effective implementation of relevant laws.

Conclusion

In light of these concerns, Bulgaria must take concrete steps to ensure transparency, accountability, and independence in its law enforcement and judicial systems if it is to effectively combat corruption and organized crime.