Right of reply from Judge Mladen Semov

The search for truth should not go through untruths.

(right of reply in connection with the publication of 30.11.2022 “BDB put Wolf of GERB as manager of a company of the Wolf with a bad loan for 150 million granted to GERB“)

Dear Representatives of Investigative Journalism,

The brilliant Peter Uvaliev had written that in a country where everything can be said and written, it can be done and everything.

Therefore, with this right of reply, I would like to express at the outset my support for your aspiration to seek and defend the truth behind some unacceptable phenomena of our public life.

At the same time, however, I cannot but state my astonishment that I am probably the first judge, incl. and the story of investigative journalism, which is the subject of irony and denigrating suggestions because it has recused itself in a case under consideration.

The specific facts:

I have known Ivan Georgiev since 15 years ago when we were fellow students at the University. He was a judge until a few years ago, in my opinion – a good judge. He was my lawyer in a very different debate. The quality of “lawyer” in the sense of the law implies trust, it is not by chance that the “lawyer” is a “trustee” and the “represented” – “trustee”.

In view of these facts, without any hesitation, when I saw him enter the Chamber and even before the beginning of the hearing (and not, as you write, “in the margin of the hearing”), I informed the other members of the Chamber that I thought it proper and wanted to refer from the hearing.

In his practice under art. 6 of the ECHR, the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly held that the Court should carry out its activities so as to exclude any reasonable doubt as to its impartiality (to that effect, Fay v. Austria, 24 February 1993, § 28 and § 30, Series A, no. 255; and Wettstein v. Switzerland; № 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII). If there is doubt, the circumstances of this darkness may be removed from the need for the purpose of the application (to that effect, Case 33958/96 Wеttѕtеіn v. Ѕwіtzеrlаnd, ECΠH 2000-XII; Rabla Ku v. Fіnlаnd, no. 47221/99, ECΠH 2004-V; and Mysallef, above). “… Judge whose bézppíctpactnoct e poctavena påd cònnénnie öånátálna pıčina, tpäbvvva da ce otveda” (to that effect, Ruѕtаvі 2 Вrоаdсаѕtіng Соmраnу Ltd аnd Оthеrѕ v. Gеоrgіа, No 16812/17, 18.07.2019).

In fact, that is why the court did not proceed with the case, and the hearing did not begin at all. You can look at the minutes of the case.

However, I read with bewilderment in your article that “Judge Mladen Semov is taken away by stating to the other two judges of the panel that he has a close personal relationship with Atty. Dallas. I wonder what kind of hunting party near Valksaray, maybe?!”.

I find this text completely false and an extremely unacceptable suggestion!

Journalism, like law, is not called to rest on doubts, even “maybe.” So I think it necessary to state more: I am not a hunter and have never gone hunting. Not alone, not with a group. I’ve only seen a wolf at the zoo…

The attempt for suggestion, which is visible from your text, acts quite demotivating… Many colleagues would ask themselves whether it makes sense at all to recuse themselves in such cases. And that’s hardly the goal that your publication pursues… Let’s imagine the opposite – in such a situation had I recused myself? What were you going to write ?.. Then a reproach would be justified.

I can’t remember the fact of my brother’s name, who has nothing to do with the case.

Four false suggestions in two sentences – with no other meaning than the denigration of my name.

I’m looking for every argument to make sure that’s not the purpose of your article.

I am convinced that journalism has a mission with meaning and depth, going beyond the petty hurt of someone. In fact, that is why I would not dare to file a lawsuit against a media seeking the truth – I am deeply convinced that the search for truth should be supported. That this is an extremely complex process in which errors are possible.

Therefore, assuming that the text concerning my name is rather a mistake, I hope that you will publish this answer of mine and at least point out that the information thus presented and the suggestion brought out are not based on any facts.

To preserve its meaning the true vocation of journalism!

Mladen Semov,

Judge at the Administrative Court Sofia-city

***

Разследващата журналистика е разузнаването на гражданите. BIRD се финансира от дарения. Ние не публикуваме реклами. Не получаваме държавни субсидии. Не разчитаме на грантове. Финансирането чрез малки дарения от читатели е гаранция за нашата независимост. Включете се, за да продължим да разкриваме злоупотреби и да държим отговорни властимащите. Използваме Вашите пари за хонорари на журналистите, командировки, изграждане и поддръжка на нашите информационни системи, такси за фирмени и имотни регистри у нас и по света, придобиване на техника и специално оборудване, осигуряване на нашата безопасност и други важни работни мисии. Важно: Ако дарявате всеки месец това ще ни даде възможност да планираме и организираме нашата работа. Благодарим Ви! Нас ни има, защото Вас Ви има!

This post is also available in: Български (Bulgarian)