Information about alleged vote-buyers in Gabrovo and the surrounding region ahead of the October 2024 election was forwarded to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, while the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Gabrovo says it has no information about what happened to the cases afterwards. The regional police directorate, meanwhile, argues that the information is not a matter of public interest and has refused to disclose it.
This, in essence, is the result of attempts by three local media outlets – “Novi Vesti”, “Za Gabrovo” and “Sevlievo Online” – to obtain information about the outcome of proceedings opened in the autumn of 2024 following reports of vote-buying in Gabrovo region.
Referred to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office
In a request under Bulgaria’s Access to Public Information Act, the three media organisations sought information about a case file opened by the Gabrovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office following public statements by Ivaylo Mirchev, co-chairman of Yes, Bulgaria, concerning alleged vote-buying by two people identified by the nicknames “Pampersa” and “The Three Xs”.
A check of the prosecution service’s information system found that the materials had been forwarded, on grounds of jurisdiction, to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office.
“The Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office is not obliged to inform us how or in what manner it has dealt with them,” the Gabrovo prosecution service said in its response.
As a result, the Gabrovo prosecutors say they cannot provide information about whether the investigation into the vote-buying allegations from autumn 2024 has been completed, or whether it has been completed at all, according to a response from administrative head Milen Mikov.
Another element adding to the lack of information is the fact that the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office is currently headed by Emiliya Rusinova, whose name has in recent months been linked in the public sphere to allegations, media reports and investigations raising questions about possible ties and conflicts of interest within the judiciary. These include claims of contacts with figures described publicly as central to the so-called “Eight Dwarfs” network and other influence networks in the prosecution service – allegations Rusinova herself has described as attempts to discredit and pressure her.
New cases have also been opened – but not resolved
As for newly received information concerning alleged vote-buying in connection with the 19 April 2026 elections, prosecutors say new case files have been opened. Because they have not yet been resolved, however, no information can be provided about their progress.
While prosecutors say they are still working to establish the facts in the vote-buying cases, the Regional Directorate of the Interior in Gabrovo has taken a categorical position that the information requested is not public information and has refused access to it.
According to the Gabrovo police, vote-buying “is not related to public life in the country”. The police also argue that the information concerns the interests of third parties and that their explicit written consent to disclose it is missing.
There is, however, another provision of the Access to Public Information Act that the regional police appear to have overlooked. Article 31(5) states that the consent of a third party is not required when there is an overriding public interest in disclosing the information.
That leaves the central question: is there an overriding public interest in information about alleged vote-buyers and the work of institutions to identify them and take legal action?
According to the response from the director of the Gabrovo Regional Directorate of the Interior, Georgi Georgiev, the answer is no. In the police’s view, the work to identify vote-buyers is not a matter of public interest and therefore does not fall within the information that should be disclosed under the Access to Public Information Act.
Yet vote-buying is a long-standing issue of acute public concern, whether it involves cash, promises of positions and benefits, pressure or threats.
There can be little doubt that buying votes distorts voters’ choices and alters the political reality. It is difficult to see how such a practice, and the institutional response to it, could reasonably be described as unrelated to public life in the country.
