Disciplinary proceedings against prosecutor Frantishek for unjustified detention

16.07.2025 | Domestic policy

The Prosecutor's College of the Supreme Judicial Council imposed an administrative penalty on a magistrate from the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office following a scandalous case of unjustified request for detention of a television producer.

Снимка от Pexels

The Supreme Judicial Council took unprecedented disciplinary actions against prosecutor Dimitar Frantishek Petrov, reducing his salary by 10% for a period of six months. The decision was made after a thorough review of his procedural actions in a resonant case related to unjustified detention of a media professional.

The origin of the case dates back to last year's proceedings, initiated by Acting Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov. The reason was a specific case in which Frantishek pressed charges and insisted on detaining television producer Niko Tuparev on suspicion of official embezzlement from 2020.

The Sofia City Court subsequently found a lack of sufficient evidence of a crime and released Tuparev without a measure of restraint. Despite this, prosecutor Frantishek continued to insist on his detention by appealing the first-instance decision.

His colleagues from the higher-ranking Sofia Appellate Prosecutor's Office withdrew his request, and later the charges against the media producer were completely dropped. The leadership of the Prosecutor's Office and the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office categorically distanced themselves from the magistrate's actions.

As a direct result of the case, Frantishek was temporarily transferred for a three-month period to the District Prosecutor's Office in Smolyan, which can be seen as a kind of disciplinary reassignment.

The decision of the Prosecutor's College of the Supreme Judicial Council aims not only to sanction the specific magistrate but also to send a clear signal to the entire judicial system regarding the inadmissibility of unfounded procedural actions that infringe on citizens' personal freedom.

Experts from the legal community define the case as indicative of the need for stricter internal control and accountability among prosecutors, especially when it comes to unjustified detention or reckless pressing of charges.