Lawyer Gancho Ganchev before FACTS: The judicial reform was conceived in a sin when the PP-DB embraced Borisov and Peevs

Are there any benefits, what are the lessons, do we have a valid law and why did the Constitutional Court take so long with its decision on the changes to the Constitution… Attorney Gancho Ganchev spoke to FACTS.

- Attorney Ganchev, the Supreme Court delayed ruling on the decisions on the changes to the Constitution, but what kind of situation has now arisen... Why was it delayed?
- In Bulgaria, the main principle when making decisions has always come not from the power of law, but from the right of power!
In this connection, and in this way, the judicial reform itself was implemented. She was conceived in sin even with the embrace of PP-DB, with Borisov and Peevski. Even then, it was clear that the main goal of Borisov and Peevski was to maintain control of personnel in the judiciary – court, investigation and prosecution, as well as in the regulators. A public secret is how it is framed in the judicial system. Each of the political forces is racing to infiltrate as many of its appointees at all levels as possible. The Supreme Court is no exception to this.

My personal opinion is that the SC was extremely slow with its decision, and here the interesting thing is whether the same is the result of agreements and bargaining?

Most likely. In the end, the main problem of this constitutional reform is and remains - limiting the possibility of President Radev to appoint an interim government and, accordingly, control and organize the electoral process. Society, as a whole, expected the SC to rule much earlier, thus bringing order to the institutional crisis, but, unfortunately, the dependencies of the SC members prevented this possibility.
What is the situation after the SC's decision: With its decision, the SC “cut“ drastic changes in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court “overruled“ almost all the changes in the basic law, left one restriction on the structure of the prosecutor's office and two on its powers, the rule that the main bearer of judicial power is the court and the right of any judge to appeal to the Supreme Court with a request to declare the unconstitutionality of a law applicable in a case.
As the main motive in its decision to cancel the changes in the Constitution, the Constitutional Court points out that they can only be carried out by the Grand National Assembly. I expressed this opinion at the very beginning of the presented changes. What is important in this case is that all declared unconstitutional provisions “retain their wording before the entry into force of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. The legal consequences that occurred during the operation of these changes in the mentioned constitutional provisions until the entry into force of this decision retain their legal effect“ - this was expressly accepted by the SC.
In practice, the court restored the previous regulation in the basic law and after its decision there is no legal vacuum in the Constitution.

The decision was mandatory in order not to allow another institutional crisis, but to introduce the old regime.

It is precisely for this reason that I argue that the SC has delayed unreasonably long, risking deepening the institutional crisis. Regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the official government and the dual citizenship of the deputies:
For three of the amendments to the basic law – on the new order of appointing a caretaker prime minister, the functioning parliament under a caretaker government and the dual citizenship of the deputies, the constitutional judges failed to reach a decision. Judges divided 6 to 6 votes and thus the newly adopted regulations remain in force.

For me, the decision in this part entirely serves the political class and is a vivid example of the dependencies in the CC.

The SC repealed all provisions in the basic law – from Art. 129 to 130c, with which the familiar High Judicial Council was divided into two separate councils – one for judges and one for prosecutors and investigators. As it became clear, with the cancellation of the two councils,

the election of the chief prosecutor again becomes the authority of the Plenum of the SJC.

In addition, with the declaration of unconstitutionality of Art. 130, para. 2 of the Constitution, which read “The Prosecutor General is appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the High Prosecutorial Council for a term of five years without the right to re-election”, the Prosecutor General will again have a 7-year term. In Art. 126, para. 2 of the Constitution again remains the text that “The Chief Prosecutor supervises the legality and methodical guidance of the activity of all prosecutors”.
In general, looking at the decision of the Constitutional Court, I am left with the impression that our legal reform moves on the principle of the tango "two forwards one back".

- Some changes remain, others are not according to the law, but the decisions of active authorities remain. How do you see what is happening?
- I do not understand the persistence of Mr. Hristo Ivanov to change the Constitution. For the second time, his proposals “fail”. In practice, once again, Mr. Ivanov made the mistake of making proposals that were not subject to public discussion, he did not ask for the opinion of the class organizations,

everything he has done is a pure form of imitation of judicial reform.

Bulgaria does not need a constitutional reform, but a restart of our political system and a complete replacement of the political elite that has lost its legitimacy. What the Bulgarian citizens expected from the loudly proclaimed constitutional reform was to return the citizens' sense of justice - social, financial and judicial. In practice this did not happen.
The idea of a stronger judicial system, of an independent judicial system, etc. became corrupt even at the moment when HRISTO IVANOV chose Borisov and Peevski as partners in this mission. Behind all this is an attempt to control the state at all levels and at that “legally”. Will the political-oligarchic circles try again? Be sure of it!

- The changes concerning the rights of Rumen Radev remain. Is this because Radev is the head of state, or is the aim simply to curtail the powers of the president, whoever he is?
- I have always been of the opinion that the changes concerning the head of state are dictated by the interest of our political oligarchic class. The whole drive for constitutional change has played its only role, and that is to limit the president's power and ability to appoint caretaker governments, as well as give the political class the ability to control the electoral process. What happened in practice with the thus achieved parity in the SC decision. In practice, now in this situation, the changes concerning the amendments to the basic law, namely - for the order of appointing an acting prime minister, for the acting parliament under an acting government, as well as for and for the dual citizenship of the deputies, the judges divided 6 to 6 votes thus, the newly adopted regulations remained in force. For me, the decision in this part entirely serves the political class and is a clear example of the dependencies in the CC. As they say - “… and the wolf full, and the lamb whole”.
In this situation, the new order for appointing a caretaker government remains, in which the president chooses the caretaker prime minister from a list of persons occupying several government offices, as the term “home book” has become widely known. In this hypothesis, we have seen that the persons falling on this list are strongly party bound and in practice push the policy of the party headquarters that sent them there. There is a lack of any independence in decision-making, there is a strong dependence and service to the political class. Last but not least, the qualifications and moral qualities of the candidates who would be potential candidates for the post of Prime Minister are controversial.
Regarding the possibility of electing a "Bulgarian citizen who has another citizenship when he has lived in the country for the last eighteen months" as a member of parliament. The decision itself opens “Pandora's box“.

And now Bulgarian politics is strongly dependent on embassies and countries.

The possibility of foreign countries taking control of our political class is evident even now. Only time will tell how much damage the lack of foresight will do to our legislators.
It is not immediately clear that the decisions to elect a Prime Minister on the “home book” primarily serve GERB and DPS. The decision regarding the possibility of electing a "Bulgarian citizen who has another citizenship when he has lived in the country for the last eighteen months" serves primarily the DPS. And last but not least, this is a solution to the problem that arose with Kiril Petkov and his declaration of renunciation of dual citizenship. An elegant way to stay “dry“.

- You see the role of the two new judges appointed by the political quota as…
- Their role is purely political, and the goal - advancing political and oligarchic interests. I have a special opinion about both candidates,

as the very election of Ms. Desislava is, to put it mildly, absurd to me.

Law is not a spoon for every mouth. It is a specific matter that should create order and rules, not chaos and lawlessness. In this regard, is it permissible for Desislava Atanasova, who actively participated in the adoption of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution, to participate in the decision of the Constitutional Court and to vote. Nonsense. This, in itself, does not meet the legal standards of independence and impartiality of each judge, the moral norms to which each of the constitutional judges must obey. Especially when it comes to the Constitutional Court itself, which should be a benchmark for legality, justice and defender of the public interest. Here is the result of the bargain. Does Ms. Atanasova possess the necessary qualities to be a CC, moral, professional, etc. - that's another question.

- Who benefits from these SC decisions. Do you see in them a benefit to society, or does the political game prevail…
- The obligation to observe the ways and forms of changing a Constitution is not simply an obligation to respect its norms, but rather an obligation to defend the democratic, legal state and the rule of law, which is the foundation of every developed society.
The decision of the Supreme Court showed one thing, the dependencies are at all levels, I do not see any benefit to society from the decisions adopted in this way. It's all a well-directed theater in which the puppeteers play with public opinion and fears, making decisions that serve their interest, hidden behind “good intentions”.