Judicial reform cannot be exhausted by regulations, even in the Constitution. There are many aspects of the reform that affect citizens and legal entities. Usually, those who talk most about judicial reform do not talk about the bottom line. We go in circles instead of achieving real results that can be measured. And if they cannot be measured, then the evaluations are more subjective. The Prosecutor General is established in the Constitution as an independent body. This is taken into account in the decision. This was stated by Prof. Yanaki Stoilov, a member of the Constitutional Court, to bTV, quoted by novini.bg
„The EC is a political body and the SC is a legal body. All institutions must maintain a good dialogue, of course, because the problems are common, he specified.
„One of the restraints is the Grand National Assembly. It is not correct on something that is on a white sheet to say whether it is possible or not. What comes to our heads comes from our heads. Just as questions are addressed to the Constitutional Court, at least to the same extent the participants in the constitutional process should address them to themselves. A spirit of self-criticism is required, he believes.
Prof. Stoilov recalled: “The leader of GERB told sympathizers that these changes have failed. They thought that when they accepted them, they would rule in an “assembly”, at least for the next 10 years, and that the result would be a weak Constitution.”
He defined the hypothesis that part of the Constitutional Court works for certain interests – in this case a certain caretaker government to be in power – as realistic. When asked why a different arshin is seen in the decisions, despite the role of the chief prosecutor and the president as independent bodies in the Constitution, Stoilov said that the criteria must be the same for the decisions of the Constitutional Court to be convincing. In both cases, he voted for the unconstitutionality of the changes.
“For me, consistency requires that the criteria and standards be the same for the decisions of the Constitutional Court to be convincing. In itself, this disappointing result means that there is no ruling and this matter can be revisited by the SC. It remains open, but currently retains current regulations. What cannot be avoided is that this is the strongest power of the President in a situation of parliamentary crisis. Now the president cannot realize the effectiveness of the government”, he also said.
"The Constitutional Court evaluates not intentions and ideas, but whether the changes were made in a way that corresponds to the order", he reminded.
When asked if he was under pressure, he succinctly answered: “Even if someone seeks contact and shares his views, I do not define it as pressure, but even if it is pressure, that is not the question, does it exist? , and who how responds to such attempts. In all cases, when the SC decides such cases, there is a large public context.”