"The Supreme Judicial Council should have opened a new procedure for the election of members from the professional quotas a long time ago. It is good that the National Assembly has finally started doing something to open a procedure for the election of members from the parliamentary quota. On the other hand, it is worrying that attempts are being made to press the deadlines. Which at first glance means that either there are ready candidates, or an attempt is being made to formally conduct this procedure."
This opinion was expressed to the Bulgarian National Radio by Atanaska Disheva, a member of the Judicial College of the Supreme Judicial Council.
The elections for the professional quotas have always been held before those for the parliamentary quota, she reminded.
"The law seems to allow for slightly shorter terms for choosing the parliamentary quota than the professional quota. I have always wondered why they are not held simultaneously."
In the program "Predi visi" Disheva expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the electronic voting system.
"There were serious doubts about the attempts to cast votes more than 200 times (or 200 people) in the building of the Supreme Judicial Council. (…) The court decided that there was not enough data to cancel the election".
The option of voting with a paper ballot always stands, she emphasized.
"The main text in the JSA is for voting with a paper ballot!"
There is a text that indicates that there may be electronic voting. The question is what assessment the SJC will make of the currently existing system or another, noted Atanaska Disheva.
It was not too laborious and time-consuming to develop a new system, she believes.
2,500 people are the electoral body of judges, 2,200-2,300 prosecutors vote. This should not be a procedure that takes months. Such a discussion will take place in the SJC, Disheva predicts.
Although she expressed hope that the selection of new members of the SJC from the judges' quota would not be announced in advance, she nevertheless pointed out:
"The judges are not tired, but disillusioned. This is much more terrible than fatigue".
Regarding the case of the failed hearing of Judge Miroslav Petrov in the case of the seizure of Ivaylo Tsvetkov's car - Noizi, Disheva called it "disappointing" that a quorum was not gathered in the judges' panel to hear Petrov. According to her, now "the judicial college is running after the wind".
"A judge complains to his personnel body that he feels threatened and feels attempts to influence his inner conviction. We have an obligation to take care of the judge's independence and to say whether he has the right to decide a case based on his inner conviction and the evidence".
According to her, Judge Miroslav Petrov has set forth "quite in-depth reasons why in this particular case he will not comply with the law".
What the prosecutor can do at best is to send a signal. I consider it completely unacceptable to justify the thesis that a judge should be disciplined. Such an assessment is not within the powers of a prosecutor, Atanaska Disheva emphasized.
There should be no conflict between the judge and representatives of the "Angels on the Road" association, she concluded. Expressing sympathy with the demands and position of the association members, Disheva commented that "putting them in this particular case is their illegitimate use".