An official letter has been received in the correspondence of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Prof. Yuliana Mateeva, and it's coming from an anonymous prosecutor at the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office, also addressed to the President of the Republic of Bulgaria, Rumen Radev, and the Inspectorate of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

The letter is a detailed exposition of allegations of abuses and dependencies within the prosecution, containing specific facts, names, and dates, and is signed with the clarification:

“With respect and hope, but unfortunately without a signature.”

Main content: Allegations against Borisav Sarafov and Elitsa Kalpachka. The anonymous prosecutor names the acting Prosecutor General, Borisav Sarafov and the Chairperson of the Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria, Elitsa Kalpachka, currently a deputy head at the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office.

The complaint alleges that there is a dependency and mutually beneficial relationship between the two, which has led to the provision of an official vehicle, security, and financial bonuses to Kalpachka without legal grounds.

The author specifies that the security was granted based on a staged threat case, for which there is no evidence of a committed crime, yet the pre-trial proceedings have not been terminated.

The staged threat: “BMW X5 and the arrested police officer”

According to the letter, in 2024, Prosecutor Kalpachka filed a complaint claiming that a former Border Police officer, Atanas Kotsev, was looking for someone to set fire to her personal BMW X5 vehicle. The case was assigned to the Kyustendil District Prosecutor's Office after all prosecutors in Blagoevgrad recused themselves due to professional dependencies. The prosecutor-author of the complaint claims there is no confirmed evidence of a threat, that the alleged perpetrator was in custody for another case, and that the investigation continues solely based on verbal instructions “not to terminate it.”

Thus, Prosecutor Kalpachka continued to use a state vehicle and security, although the security was protecting her personally, while the alleged threat was directed at her property.

The author describes the situation as a “complete paradox,” as the car was driven by Kalpachka’s son while simultaneously being cited as the object of the threat.

Old conflict and personal motives

The letter outlines a prior conflict between Kalpachka and Atanas Kotsev. Kotsev, as a Border Police officer, had issued a report against Kalpachka’s father for illegal logging near the border with North Macedonia. Following this, she allegedly stated that she would “deal with him,” and subsequently, according to the anonymous author, initiated disciplinary actions that led to his dismissal from the Ministry of Interior.

Connections with Daniela Taleva

The complaint notes that Prosecutor Kalpachka maintains close personal ties with Daniela Taleva, a special prosecutor tasked with investigating the Prosecutor General and their deputies. The two reportedly knew each other from their time working in Petrich and, according to the complaint, were often seen together in nightlife venues. The author links Taleva’s refusal to initiate pre-trial proceedings against Borisav Sarafov to the period when Kalpachka received an official vehicle for personal use.

Manipulated appointment process

The complaint includes a specific claim that on October 14, 2025, Prosecutor Kalpachka was appointed as acting administrative head of the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office before the competitive procedure for the position was announced. According to the complainant, this serves as a demonstrative message to other candidates that the outcome is predetermined, and the system is “tainted by the corrupt leadership of Borisav Sarafov.”

Bonuses and personal loyalty

The complaint alleges that in 2025 alone, Kalpachka received three financial bonuses at Sarafov’s discretion. Additionally, she allegedly performed an informal role as a courier and intermediary, travelling across the country with the official vehicle to deliver verbal messages “face-to-face” on behalf of Sarafov.

The author insists that the competent authorities conduct a full review of travel orders, mileage reports, and the actual use of state resources.

Political context and broader implications

A significant portion of the letter is devoted to the structural dependency within the prosecutorial college of the SJC. The anonymous prosecutor claims that dependent members of the college cover up Sarafov and Kalpachka’s violations, aiming to control elections for SJC members from the professional quota. According to the author, the goal is to consolidate influence and place “convenient leaders in key prosecutorial positions.”

Final appeal and conclusion

The concluding section states: “The attacks launched by the acting Prosecutor General Borisav Sarafov and the Chairperson of the Association of Prosecutors, Elitsa Kalpachka, are driven by personal interests rather than violations of the law.”

The author calls on the institutions to:

• The President and the National Assembly are to take action to clarify the facts.
• The Inspectorate of the SJC is to investigate disciplinary and administrative dependencies.
• Discuss mandatory interpretation or amendment of the law to require the SJC to elect a new acting Prosecutor General and a new Chairperson of the Supreme Administrative Court.

Public significance and next steps

The complaint, though anonymous, represents an internal testimony from within the system, sharply raising the issue of the prosecution’s independence and transparency. Its official receipt in Prof. Yuliana Mateeva’s office lends institutional weight and an obligation for review under established procedures.

The issues raised, regarding mutual dependencies among senior prosecutors, abuse of power, and privileges, will require a clear and transparent response from the Supreme Judicial Council, the Ministry of Justice, and the President of the Republic.