CEC: Peevski meets all eligibility requirements for MEP

NGO of Tsvetan Vassilev fails to read the law properly, it transpires from the cursory check of their complaint

Delyan Peevski

The Central Electoral Committee (CEC) came out with a decision that the candidature of the MP and publisher of Telegraph Media meets all the eligibility requirements. The checkup was provoked by an alarm signal sent by Boets NGO associated with the fugitive banker Tsvetan Vassilev who is hiding from justice in Serbia. It is namely Boets that sent a warning against Peevski to CEC.

In the ‘complaint’ of the NGO, which for years has been catering to the interests of the oligarchic circles gravitating to Vassilev, it was maintained that Peevski is not eligible for MEP since in the last six months he was not living in Bulgaria. As a proof to that, the NGO quotes a ludicrous argument: Peevski was abroad because they could not find him and they insisted that the state authorities should also look for the MP. Regardless of the fact that no one had information that he is out of Bulgaria.

However, it turned out that the alarm signal is nothing but a manipulative insinuation as, according to the law, the “six-month stay” in Bulgaria or any other EU Member State, means that a person should have address registration (be it permanent or at the address of residence) in some of the EU countries or in Bulgaria. The detailed explanation is available in the additional provisions to the Electoral Code, CEC replies to the ‘complaint’ by Boets.

Boets sent in a letter claiming that there were certain ‘violations’. We respond that what they consider a ‘violation’ is not a violation because the Election Code envisions something completely different when it specifies “resided in the last six months”, was adamant CEC spokesperson Alexander Andreev. He also refuted another attempt at manipulation spread by Boets which was immediately circulated fanlike by the other media outlets sustained by the behind-the-scenes clique in Bulgaria. After they received the reply from CEC, which made it clear that the NGO of Tsvetan Vassilev failed to read the law properly, Boets tried to exonerate themselves (obviously before their financial guru – Ed.’s note) for not managing to accomplish the commissioned task. That is why they have spread another statement in which they claim that CEC is trying to cover up for Peevski and for this reason sent them back a letter instead of an official ruling which could be appealed at the Supreme Administrative Court.  

It proved to be, though, that this claim of Boets doesn’t hold true, either. The spokesperson for CEC explained that there was no legislatorial regulation concerning the reply to the Boets complaint, i.e. whether it will be a letter or an official ruling of the Committee.

“In this case they warn about something that has nothing to do with the legal provisions. The legal proceedings do not envision with what act the CEC has to come out in response to what Boets calls “an alarm signal”. The fact that they want us to come out with a ruling and to assign to us to make probes which they consider normal does not mean that CEC is obliged to come out with a ruling,” Andreev was adamant. He also said that the warning was examined and there was no information in it that could be considered as an “alarm signal”.

“Their claims are based on some statements of some people made some time - that the person in question is not eligible to be nominated for MEP. There is no reason why they cannot appeal whatever they want. They can appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court any ruling, even the protocol-defined decisions of CEC. The letter was sent following such protocol-defined decision,” Andreev said further.

Similar articles