What the next National Assembly must begin, are the procedures for selecting the long list of bodies with expired mandates. And here in the first place are the two most important bodies in the judiciary – The Inspectorate and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). This was said in an interview for BTA by Bilyana Gyaurova-Wegertseder - director of the Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives.
According to her, through this activity, the discussion about the direction of politics regarding the judiciary can be resumed.
There won't be a wide debate after the return of some of the texts for changes to the Constitution, at least in the coming weeks, Gjaurova-Wegertseder also believes.
According to her, the time in which the Constitutional Court (CC) published its decision was calculated very well – had started the so-called judicial vacation, i.e. a large part of the magistrates will not be so focused on what is happening in the system; the period is a holiday, which means that a large part of people, including experts following the topic, are not in the mood to comment on the decision.
The full text of the interview follows
Nearly 20 days ago, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional and invalid part of the changes to the Constitution. Does it strike you that there still isn't a broad debate about why it got here and an analysis of what mistakes were made?
There won't be a broad debate, at least in the coming weeks, for several reasons. First of all, the timing of the SC publishing its decision was very well calculated – had started the so-called judicial vacation, i.e. a large part of the magistrates will not be so focused on what is happening in the system; the period is a holiday, which means that a large part of people, including experts, following the topic are not in the mood to comment on the decision.
Next, from a political point of view, “benefit“ the systemic parties are more likely to talk about the decision, because they can use it for their narrow party, and already pre-election goals. It is no coincidence that GERB representatives expressed the opinion in the television studios that the changes to the Constitution were voted on “because this topic had to be removed from the agenda”.
To date, we see that it has almost been removed, and if PP-DB representatives start talking about it, it will rather have a negative effect.
There is talk around the thesis that the adopted changes were imposed by one particular party without going into substantive analysis, because anyway the others knew that they would “fall” in the Constitutional Court and have patiently waited for it to get there. And in fact, the serious and mostly objective conversation is missing.
Should anyone be held accountable for this?
In a broader aspect, all of us as a society are responsible, because during the years of transition, and until now, we have failed to produce leaders who will be guided by the state interest /I realize to this day how naive this sounds/ , and not from his personal and party approval. Perhaps then the texts in the 1991 Constitution would have been slightly different, especially in the part on the judiciary; perhaps the inevitable interpretative Decision No. 3 of 2003 of the Constitutional Court would not have been there either, because there would have been no one to refer to it with questions about what the form of government and organization means, and when there are changes in them.
If we return to the present day, however, the responsibility rests with all those who voted for the changes to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria in December 2023 and it is their duty to explain, non-politically, why this shot was fired at point blank range and especially why he was in such a hurry. My personal opinion is that if the procedure had not been so accelerated last year, we would not be in this situation now – both in legal and political aspect.
Do you expect the topic to be considered in the next National Assembly and new ones to be voted on through editing of the returned texts?
It is too early to talk about specific expectations. Such a conversation can be had when it is seen who will be the political parties and coalitions that will enter the next 51st parliament. Even from a purely mathematical point of view, because ultimately the adoption of changes to the Constitution is connected to a more complicated procedure, requiring more deputies.
What the next National Assembly must necessarily start are the procedures for selecting the long list of bodies with expired mandates. And here in the first place are the two most important bodies in the judiciary – The Inspectorate and the High Judicial Council. Through this activity, the discussion about the direction of the policy regarding the judiciary can be resumed.
How do you explain that the parties that unanimously supported the changes at the end of last year are now not discussing this topic at all?
Talking about changes to the Constitution and especially the part about the judiciary has never been easy. A very small percentage of people encounter the justice system and “pass” through it. Because of this, the interest in it is weak. Our legal culture is very low, which leads to a misunderstanding of why it is important to have a truly independent court and an accountable prosecutor's office.
For most people these are abstractions and of course politicians are aware of this fact. For systemic parties, as I said above, the topic is closed, and for those parties that have made it their leading priority, at the moment it rather brings them negative. For them, at the moment, it is more important to get out of the “trap” of judicial reform so that at some later point they can bring up this otherwise infinitely important conversation again.
After the changes to the Constitution were returned, the Plenum of the SJC was again convened according to the old order, as it is by law. Do you expect the composition of the Council with an expired mandate to elect the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the SAC, or is it more logical to first have an election for a new SJC under the old rules and then schedule the other elections?
The question has two aspects – legal and moral. From a legal point of view, the SJC is not prohibited from starting the procedure. He had even started last year, but decided to stop the procedure until the Constitutional Court ruled. And the SC approved the new rules, which now means that the chief prosecutor can be elected with 13, not 17 votes. The SJC can simply decide to continue the procedure, draw up a timeline and start the actual part of collecting nominations and everything else. And the actions of the Council will
be legitimate.
Regardless of this, however, the moral aspect of the situation is also very strong in this case. The current composition of the SJC, alas, did not prove to be at the height that this body has as a defender of the independence of the judicial system and the defense of the principles of the rule of law, transparency and responsibility. His entire term, which expired in 2022, was marked by scandals, quarrels, ill-considered, to say the least, personnel decisions and, in general, another dark stain was placed on the image of the judiciary. That is why, before taking action, this SJC should think seriously and, perhaps for the first and last time, show principle. Because in a truly democratic country, the unwritten rules and norms are the ones that should prevail at times like the present.