It is never good to make a law for one person. But the problem is that we have an upcoming election. And the candidate who will probably be selected by the Supreme Judicial Council suffers from certain defects. Information appeared in the public domain, to which the Supreme Judicial Council did not give a clear answer about data and circumstances in a bad light for the candidate for Prosecutor General. This was commented by Prof. Ekaterina Mihaylova, a law professor at the National University of Bulgaria, founder of the DSB, former MP from the UDF, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, in an interview with the Bulgarian National Radio, referring to the sole candidacy of Borislav Sarafov for Prosecutor General.
"Secondly - we have a Supreme Judicial Council with an expired mandate and this calls into question such an election. People are not interested in 2/3 or 5/8. They are interested in having a functioning judiciary, in having justice, in having fairness. Justice is what we expect from the judiciary," said Prof. Mihaylova in "Nedelya 150".
According to her, it would be compromising if this choice were to happen and this is the reason for the 3 bills submitted, adopted by a majority on first reading.
"The other decisive participant is the president, who expressed doubt. We have competition from institutions and a race against time," added Mihaylova.
She believes that despite the MPs' haste, it is not possible for the changes in the laws to enter into force by January 16:
"But in order for a prosecutor general, chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court or chairman of the Supreme Court of Cassation to be elected, it is not enough to have a decision by the Supreme Judicial Council, but also a decree from the president. He has a key role and in the PP-DB draft law this role is clearly assigned to him. The procedure is terminated if, on the day of the promulgation of the law, it has not been concluded with a presidential decree. There will clearly not be a decree immediately after the vote in the Supreme Judicial Council, this is indicated by the data coming from the president."
Prof. Mihaylova also recalled a curiosity when the Constitution was being changed. The deputies planned to take away these powers from the president - to have the last word on the three big ones in the judiciary.
"Then we told them, "don't do it, this is another guarantee and balancing role of the president. Thank God, they listened and left these powers. And those who wanted to take away his powers are now staring at him," shared the law professor at the NBU.
She commented on why the PP-DB proposal in the Judiciary Law should be accepted and how the president should have powers, and not be a "rubber stamp" when people are elected to positions for 7 years.
According to her, it is high time for the deputies to find a solution and make the change in the SJC mandatory:
"They should think that after the changes to the Constitution, this 2/3 majority creates a blockage. And the SJC is not the only institution, the same goes for the SJC inspectorate. An unlocking mechanism must be found, where there are high majorities, the Venice Commission told them, in a second vote the majority should drop from 2/3 to 1/2. The state cannot remain blocked for months and years. This is vicious and leads to serious consequences."
She pointed out that it will be difficult for the deputies to elect members of the Supreme Judicial Council from the parliamentary quota, but there is no easy job, they were sent not to make it easy for them, but to make it difficult for them".
"They must find a way, to make criteria for the candidates. That is why these institutions like the National Assembly are public, so that we can see what is happening, how they are doing it and why. And when it is not as it should be, people react and sweep away these politicians who make these decisions", warned Prof. Ekaterina Mihaylova.
Regarding the participation of the Democratic Party in the negotiations for forming a government, she commented:
"When establishing the Democratic Party of Bulgaria, we have stepped on anti-communism, but also on another thing - responsibility to the state and citizens. The state cannot be left on autopilot. We need to look for specific parameters in a program and things to be done. There is no way in this situation to work only with those we like. It is possible that if we have big goals, when we achieved membership in the EU and NATO, the goals were big. The Declaration of National Consent from 1997 was supported by a much larger circle of political forces, and we had independent governance. With big goals, you look for broad support so that you don't end up with a bad result in the country."