Политика

On 14 October, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) heard case 8041, instituted on the appeal of Fidel Beev against the decision of the Municipal Election Commission (OIC) and the Pazardzhik District Court (POC) for early termination of his powers as mayor of the municipality of Velingrad. The chairman of the three-member panel was Judge Stefka Stoeva, rapporteur on the case Yordan Kostadinov and member B. Magdalinchev.
The applicant Fidel Beev appeared before the SAC with his lawyers Atanas Zhelezchev and Daniel Leviev, lawyers of the Municipal Election Commission were Evelina Bozhikova and Neli Simeonova. In the hall OIC represented its chairwoman Ivanka Stancheva. As the process was public, municipal councilors, former municipal officials and velingradians were also present.
Both parties wished the case to be moved, after which they were given the opportunity to present written evidence on the controversial case: whether Fidel Beev has violated Art. 41, para. 1 of the Local Government and Local Administration Act (LMSMA), and during his mayoral term he was manager of a company and carried out commercial activities.
Mr. Beev's lawyers presented a decision dated July 7, 2004, according to which he was deleted as manager of the Beevi Brothers Collection Company. In turn, the lawyers of the OIC submitted as evidence a reference from DELFI that to date Fidel Beev is not a manager, but continues to be a partner in SD "Brothers Beevi". They also submitted a reference from the Municipality of Velingrad for fuel suppliers from February to September 2004. It lists 24 transactions between the municipality and the Beevi Brothers SD, carried out during the reign of F. Beev and the interim mayor Stoyan Dulev. Lawyer Zhelezchev insisted that the reference should not be accepted as evidence or that a postponement should be given in order to present additional evidence as well. The judges determined the request to be unfounded because the SAC carried out cassation proceedings and did not collect additional evidence.
Lawyers' pleadings followed (we present them separately with abbreviations). The main thesis of Fidel Beev's lawyers was that he simply missed the deadline in which he had to come out of his numerous firms and that this deadline for him should run not from the date of taking the oath as mayor 28 January 2004, but from 17 February, when the SAC finally declared his election legal. The lawyers of the OIC argued that the requirement of the law for the mayor not to be the manager of a company and not to carry out commercial activity applies for the duration of his entire term, that is, from the day of taking the oath. Mr. Beev did not meet the 7-day deadline under the Commerce Act, and part of his companies did not come out as a manager until after the OIC started proceedings to terminate his powers. Even now, Mr. Beev continues to be a partner in the Beevi Brothers SD, and by law, the partners in the collecting societies are engaged in commercial activities. As particularly important, the lawyers pointed out that at the time they made their decisions OIC and POS, Fidel Beev violated Art. 41, para. 1 of the LMSMA was both mayor and manager of the Beevi Brothers SD, carrying out commercial activities with the municipality and municipal companies, which is a conflict of personal and public interests and abuse of official rights.
The latter thesis was joined by the prosecutor in the case, who categorically defined the decision of OIC and POS as correct and pleaded that, by virtue of irrefutable evidence, Fidel Beev's term as mayor of the municipality of Velingrad should be terminated early.
The presiding judge announced that the decision would be made within the legal 30-day time limit. It will be final and not subject to appeal before another instance and will show whether Fidel Beev, although mayor and trader at the same time, is returning to the mayoral post or if there will be partial elections for mayor in the municipality of Velingrad.
Elena Baeva