The Supreme Cassation Court (VKS) has overturned the conviction of Yanko Yankov, a former municipal councilor from Stara Zagora, who was convicted of vote-buying, and has remanded the case for a new review at the Sofia Appellate Court.
The Supreme Cassation Court issued a decision that nullifies Yankov’s conviction—originally handed down by the Sofia Appellate Court in 2023 and confirmed by its decision last March. The case is now to be reconsidered by a different panel of the Sofia Appellate Court, at the stage of admitting evidence in the appeal process.
This ruling, issued in April of this year, was made in a public session on February 25 by a three-judge panel chaired by Balgica Ivanova, with Prosecutor Ivaylo Simov present. Daniel Lukov was the rapporteur, and Second Judge Kalin Kalpakchiev signed the decision with a dissenting opinion.
The proceedings were initiated at the request of the Sofia City Prosecutor based on a provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states: “A criminal case is reopened when some of the evidence on which the conviction, decision, ruling, or order is based is found to be false” (Article 422, paragraph 1, item 1 of the CPC).
The prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office considers this request justified and seeks its approval. The Supreme Court of Cassation (VKS) also accepts it as admissible and valid.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court of Cassation (VKS) recalls the entire chronology of the case, which began at the Sofia City Court with an initial verdict against Yanko Yankov in November 2022, followed by its annulment by the Sofia Appeals Prosecutor’s Office and the issuance of a new verdict. In this new ruling, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and a fine of 12,000 BGN for vote-buying. The court acquitted him of the charge of acting as an official — specifically, buying votes for himself as a candidate in the 2019 local elections — but deprived him of the right to hold this position for four years.
In its decision (No 166/14.03.2024), the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation annulled part of the verdict issued by the Sofia Appeals Court, which had found Yankov guilty of offering money to persuade 50 individuals to vote for him as a mayoral candidate, and acquitted him of that specific charge.
The annulment also applied to the sentence of “deprivation of the right to hold the mayor’s office for four years.” The remaining parts of the verdict were upheld.
From the reasoning of the appellate and cassation court decisions—primarily, the main evidence establishing the defendant’s guilt—are the witness testimonies of the individual designated with the initials I. A.
However, it turns out that this witness had, in the previous year, entered into an agreement with the District Court in Stara Zagora and had retracted his earlier statements made during the pre-trial proceedings, which had been confirmed both before the Sofia City Court and subsequently, with the exception of having received an advance payment of 200 BGN from Yankov.
According to provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Article 383, paragraph 1), the settlement approved by the court with the Stara Zagora District Court for resolving the case has the effect of a final judgment — in this case, a conditional one. Given this, “it is clear that some of the evidence, specifically the testimony of the witness I. A., which served as the basis for the conviction of the person Y. Y., proves to be false. This established fact is of extraordinary importance for the correct resolution of the case and was not known to the deciding courts. In this particular case, considering the acquittal issued by the Sofia City Court in 2021, it is necessary, in accordance with the procedure for reopening, to annul the verdict of the appellate court in the referenced case, as well as the confirmatory decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation,” states the Supreme Court in its reasoning.
In his opinion, Judge Kalin Kalpakchiev, who signed the Supreme Court of Cassation’s (VKS) decision with a dissenting opinion, states that “The reopening of criminal cases is a separate extraordinary stage for control over the legality of the final court acts, and therefore the VKS is limited by what is explicitly requested in the motion for reopening. In this sense, according to him, the indictment from the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office has only formulated a request to reopen and annul the first-instance verdict of the Sofia City Court, but not to annul the appellate verdict of the Sofia Appellate Court or the decision of the VKS that confirmed it in force.”
Judge Kalin Kalpakchiev also notes that in the factual part of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office’s (SGPO) request, arguments are presented that the established facts from the general criminal case of the Ruse District Court (RDS) — regarding the circumstances that are of significant importance for the conviction of the defendant Y. — are of essential importance for his guilt. At the same time, however, the SGPO requests the annulment of the verdict issued by the Sofia City Court (Sofia CC), in which the defendant was acquitted.
In this context — that, unlike other legal remedies available to defendants, which allow them to appeal convictions, re-opening proceedings is an exceptional and extraordinary remedy — Judge Kalin Kalpakchiev expresses the opinion that “the Supreme Court of Cassation (VKS) should not adopt a formal approach, but carefully and specifically assess how the false evidence is of decisive importance for the factual circumstances accepted by the courts, and whether excluding it would lead to a significant change.”
In his opinion, the senior judge reminds that facts established based on the testimony of witness A. from pre-trial proceedings; the testimony of witness I. I. from pre-trial proceedings; recordings of conversations between Y. and A. obtained through phonoscopic and technical examinations; and the protocol for voluntary surrender from 26.10.2019, where witness A. handed over 10 banknotes of 20 BGN each and 46 ballots, are all pivotal.
He also emphasizes that after a preliminary check, a prosecutor from the Ruse District Prosecutor’s Office initially refused to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury, but following an appeal by Yankov, the decision to refuse was annulled by a prosecutor from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Ruse, and criminal proceedings for a violation of Article 290, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (falsifying evidence or lying under oath) were initiated. The testimonies of witnesses in this newly opened pre-trial proceeding, as described in Judge Kalpakchiev’s opinion, resemble the plot of a Latin American soap opera — but that is a topic for another discussion.
In judicial practice, it is accepted that in cases under Article 422, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (where the criminal case is reopened because some of the evidence on which the conviction or decision is based proves to be false), the assessment by the Supreme Court of Cassation (VKS) should focus on whether the false evidence was of decisive importance for the accepted factual circumstances, and whether its exclusion would lead to a significant change in the case outcome,“ writes the judge in his opinion, concluding that since it has been established that the court’s conviction was not only based on the testimony of the acknowledged false witness but also on other evidence in the case—“reopening the case cannot be permitted.
Regardless of the court’s decisions, facts raise numerous questions. Here are just two:
- Did the main witness decide to withdraw his testimony voluntarily or under pressure?
- Why, with the same evidentiary material, did the Sofia Regional Prosecutor’s Office refuse to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury, only for the decision to be overturned following a complaint by Yanko Yankov by a prosecutor from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and for criminal proceedings to be initiated nonetheless?
A new panel of the Sofia Appellate Court will review the case from the evidence admission phase in the appeal stage. “Za Istinata” (Fot the truth) will continue monitoring the case’s development.
