Kotsev's Lawyer: Possible Change in Dian Ivanov's Status in the Case

19.07.2025 | Crime News

Nikolay Vladimirov, defender of the mayor of Varna, reveals potential procedural complications surrounding the case, allowing for a transformation of Dian Ivanov's procedural status.

Снимка от ChvhLR10, Wikimedia Commons, под CC BY-SA 3.0

In an expert commentary to the media, lawyer Nikolay Vladimirov presented an in-depth analysis of the current court proceedings, casting doubt on the credibility of available evidence and the potential future procedural role of Dian Ivanov.

According to the legal expert, there is a high probability that Dian Ivanov will be charged - potentially for complicity in a corruption crime or as a direct perpetrator. Vladimirov emphasized the lack of personal information about the whereabouts of the said person.

A key point in his presentation was the critical assessment of the presented evidence. The lawyer pointed out that the prosecution has not provided Ivanov's statement, despite it being widely known in the public space.

Vladimirov defined Ivanov's initial statements, given immediately after Blagomir Kotsev's arrest, as priority valid evidence. According to him, his later statements have no procedural value.

The expert emphasized the lack of specificity in Ivanov's claims, describing them as an attempt to portray Kotsev as corrupt, while presenting himself in a positive light.

An interesting detail from the account was the description of the controversial meeting between Kotsev and Plamenka Dimitrova. Ivanov claims he was at a nearby table in an establishment but did not hear the essence of the conversation. A representative of the public procurement contractor was also present at the meeting.

Vladimirov highlighted the urgency of the public procurement, emphasizing that without its conclusion, schools would be left without necessary services.

Among his key recommendations was the request for the presentation of special investigative means, whose reproduction he believes is unreasonably delayed by the prosecution. Simultaneously, he cast doubt on the credibility of Plamenka Dimitrova's testimony.

The lawyer's final conclusion was that the case requires additional in-depth investigation and precise analysis of all available evidence.