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

***

За да научавате преди всички за нови разследвания, инсталирайте си нашето мобилно приложение:

Щом сте стигнали дотук, вероятно вече си задавате въпроса как се финансира този журналистически проект.

От създаването си BIRD се финансираше от подаяния в нашето журналистическо чекмедже. Но на чекмеджето му мина времето. Даже прокуратурата затвори онова Чекмедже, знаете кое… Нашето финансиране влиза в крак с епохата. Фондонабиращата ни кампания вече се казва

#МятайСBIRD

Дарявай за BIRD и мятай павета в блатото с корумпирани политици и други тарикати.

Защо да мятам ли?

BIRD.bg е една от малкото специализирани разследващи медии у нас и осветява мащабни корупционни схеми, конфликти на интереси и злоупотреба с власт, в които участват ключови политици, магистрати, бизнесмени. В завладяна държава като България свободните медии имат изключително важна роля и за да останат независими и обективни, се нуждаят от подкрепата на гражданите.

Ние се издържаме само от малки дарения от граждани. Изчислили сме, че за да работим като устойчива медия, ни трябват около 240,000 лв. годишно или 20,000 лв. на месец. Тук виждате актуалния брой на нашите регулярни дарители, средната месечна сума на даренията и общата сума, която те са дарили за периода от старта на сайта през септември 2020 г. до днешна дата.

Регулярните месечни дарения в размер 10, 20, 50 лв. или друга сума по избор ни дават финансова сигурност и позволяват да планираме дейността си за месеци напред.

Освен да “мятате”, можете и да “шамаросвате”. В момента срещу журналистите от BIRD се водят 10 дела SLAPP известни като “дела-шамари”. Помогнете ни за съдебните разходи, които никак не са малки. Всяко Ваше дарение за конкретно “дело-шамар” е “шамар” срещу шамаросващите, които разполагат с огромни пари срещу нашите скромни финансови възможности.

Дълбоко благодарни сме за всяка подкрепа!