Vladimira Yaneva acquitted of conflict-of-interest accusations

Sofia City Court (SCC) Chair, Vladimir Yaneva, has not breached the Conflict of Interest Prevention and Ascertainment Act in the embezzlement trial against the former executives of the municipal real estate company Sofiyski Imoti (Sofia Properties), the recently established Commission for Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest decided.

Yaneva’s case was the first important one in the practice of this institution. In order to identify a case of conflict of interest, according to the commission’s members, the accused must be a public servant found in pursuit of a private interest, resulting in a personal profit. The conflict-of-interest watchdog reckoned that this was not the case with Yaneva because the two properties in question had been acquired by a person related to her - her father.

In June, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) sent the documents on Yaneva’s case to the Commission for Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest after a scandal broke out in connection with the Sofiyski Imoti lawsuit. It turned out then that in 2002, Vladimira Yaneva had purchased two real estate properties at preferential prices from the municipal company as a proxy for a company owned by her father. Nearly eight years later, Yaneva was assigned the embezzlement trial against 11 former managers of Sofiyski Imoti, the company’s head Toshko Dobrev among them.

Judge Yaneva was delaying her judgement for several months and eventually closed the case.The Sofia Appellate Court revoked her decision and returned the case to her. However, she delayed it for more than another three months and in July 2011, a month after the scandal broke out, she withdrew from the case. The trial has not been scheduled yet.

According to the commission, in order to identify a case of conflict of interest, the acquisition of the properties should be such a profit that would affect Yaneva’s impartiality when fulfilling her duties. But the alleged delay or non-pronouncement on the embezzlement case in the July 22 - December 20, 2010 period cannot be connected in any way with the properties acquired on May 17, 2002, the conflict-of-interest watchdog concluded.

Прочети цялата новина

Свързани новини: