I don't have many expectations for the current minister, given the impressions I have of his work so far. Of course, a person can change. This was stated on the air of the program "Intervjuto" on BNT Atanaska Disheva from the Judicial College of the SJC.
"The name of the Minister of Justice was surprising. I think not only for me, but it was also announced publicly – as a big surprise. The fact is that the Minister of Justice was the person who was last announced as the relevant minister. I have worked in the Supreme Judicial Council with Mr. Naydenov. I wouldn't say that he had a very long stay in the SJC. He was the director of the "Legal" directorate, then he served as the secretary general for some time. In my opinion, he did not stand out, at least while working in the SJC, he did not display reformist qualities, which in my opinion should be required of the Minister of Justice in the current administration, in view of the announced intentions of the new government. Surprises are always possible."
According to her, the acting Minister of Justice has "raised the ball high" with his proposals for reforms.
"If the government submits a bill, as is the intention literally tomorrow, to limit the powers of the relevant colleges to elect at least administrative heads, this would be a good step towards establishing an intention to return to the main functions of the SJC - to uphold independence. Last year, an emblematic decision was issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which, in my opinion, said that a body with an expired mandate, whose composition is elected by the National Assembly and is not renewed in time, should not make decisions related to the independence of judges. However, the SJC did not adopt this interpretation. But the National Assembly has the full right to make such a restriction."
The Supreme Judicial Council refused to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its member Yordan Stoev due to an expired deadline, Atanaska Disheva explained.
„The deadline for initiating disciplinary proceedings is 6 months from the knowledge or public disclosure of the circumstances that served as grounds for initiating disciplinary proceedings. In this particular case, this deadline has expired and therefore we have not discussed the issue on the merits at all“, stated Disheva.
According to her, the decision was made entirely on procedural grounds, without considering the facts of the case.