Bulgaria / Supreme Court of Cassation / No 144/2025
-
Bulgaria / Supreme Court of Cassation / No 144/2025
Key facts of the case:
The case against V.V. and B.Z. concerns tax crimes committed between October 2015 and March 2017. The prosecution alleged that the two defendants participated in a scheme to evade tax liability by issuing false invoices and reports for non-existent cleaning services. These documents were included in the accounting records and used when submitting tax returns to the National Revenue Agency. As a result, VAT and corporate tax totalling BGN 35,190 (approximately €17,600) were evaded.
The prosecution's case was supported by witness testimony, handwriting analysis, and accounting expertise, which proved that no actual services were provided and that there was no material basis for their performance. Based on this evidence, the first instance and appellate courts found the defendants guilty and imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment.
However, the main dispute before the Supreme Court of Cassation related to the Charter concerns the right to defence and the clarity of the charges. The defence argued that the indictment was invalid because it described the acts in too general terms – for example, using phrases such as ‘included invoices’ or ‘used documents’, without specifying the individual actions, dates, and places where they were performed. Furthermore, the roles of the two defendants were not clearly distinguished, nor was the method used to calculate the amount of tax evasion. According to the applicants, this lack of clarity violated their right to information under Article 55 of the Penal Procedure Code, Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU, and the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the indictment contained sufficient specific facts regarding the time, place, participants, and the method of the crime to organise an adequate defence. Thus, the court dismissed the argument concerning the alleged violation of fundamental rights and upheld the sentence.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The key legal question raised by the court was whether the criminal procedure complied with the accused person’s right to a fair trial, including the right to be informed in detail of the charges against them, when the indictment might be perceived as insufficiently precise regarding the acts, roles, and timing of the alleged offences.
Outcome of the case:
The key legal question in this case was whether the indictment was sufficiently clear to allow the defendants to understand the charges against them and to prepare an effective defence, in accordance with Article 47 of the EU Charter, Article 6 of the ECHR, and Directive 2012/13/EU. The Supreme Court of Cassation concluded that the indictment provided adequate factual and legal details. It specified the relevant time, the location of the alleged acts, the method of the tax evasion, and the roles of both defendants, with the first acting as the perpetrator and the second as the aider. The indictment clearly identified the relevant documents and invoices, described the alleged manipulation of tax declarations, and quantified the total amount of taxes evaded. On this basis, the Court found that the defendants had been given sufficient information to prepare their defence, satisfying the procedural safeguards required under both national law and EU standards. The Court held that there had been no violation of the defendants’ right to be informed of the charges, and the procedural aspects of the trial had complied with the requirements of a fair trial.
The implications of this judgment for the facts of the case were significant. By confirming that the indictment was sufficiently clear, the court reinforced the factual findings of the lower courts, establishing one of the defendants as the perpetrator and the other as the facilitator of the scheme. The court dismissed the defendants’ procedural objections regarding the clarity of the charges, meaning that these arguments could not serve as a basis to annul or reduce their sentences. The convictions were upheld, confirming that both defendants knowingly participated in the creation and use of fictitious invoices to evade taxes. Furthermore, the Court considered the punishment as proportionate, including the conditional execution with a four-year probation period, taking into account the scope of the defendants’ involvement and the harm caused to the society. The Court completed the lower courts’ legal and factual conclusions, by upholding that the procedural rights were respected and that the indictment provided sufficient details to support the convictions.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
The review of the arguments put forward in its defence did not substantiate their validity, and despite the prohibition provided for in Article 351, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code on raising objections for substantial procedural violations in the pre-trial proceedings, the Supreme Court of Cassation owes a response to the complaint of ambiguity in the indictment. The basis for this is provided by the decision of the CJEU of 21 October 2021 in Case No. C-282/20, according to which Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU must be interpreted as that they preclude national legislation which does not provide for a procedure after the preliminary hearing in criminal proceedings to remove ambiguities and omissions in the content of the indictment and which infringes the right of the accused to be given detailed information about the charges against him.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
Проверката на поддържаните съображения, с които е защитено, не обоснова тяхната основателност и въпреки наличието на забраната предвидена в чл. 351, ал. 2 от НПК за навеждане на възражения за съществени процесуални нарушения в досъдебното производство, ВКС дължи отговор на оплакването за неяснота в обвинението. Основание за това дава решение на СЕС от 21.10.2021 г. по дело № С282/20 г., съгласно което чл. 6, пар. 3 от Директива 2012/13/ЕС на ЕП и на Съвета от 22 май 2012 г. относно правото на информация в наказателното производство и чл. 47 от Харта на основните права на ЕС трябва да се тълкуват в смисъл, че не допускат национално законодателство, което не предвижда процесуален ред след разпоредително заседание по наказателно дело за отстраняване на неяснота и непълнота в съдържанието на обвинителния акт и чрез които се нарушава правото на обвиняемия да му бъде дадена подробна информация относно обвинението.