Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mihail Malchev is a candidate for a member of the Judicial College of the Supreme Judicial Council from the quota of the National Assembly. He is a judge with experience in various types of courts and instances, an associate professor of civil and family law and the author of more than sixty scientific publications. In his concept, he proposes a predictable personnel calendar, an end to prolonged secondment as a substitute for the competition, verifiable personnel decisions, protection of judges from pressure and clear limits on the use of artificial intelligence in justice. His candidacy is supported by the Bulgarian Judges Association, the Association of Bulgarian Administrative Judges, the Faculty of Law of the University of Ruse “Angel Kanchev“, as well as by university lecturers, including Prof. Dr. Malina Novkirishka-Stoyanova, Prof. Dr. Valentina Popova, Prof. Dr. Lyuba Panayotova, Prof. Dr. Irena Ilieva, Prof. Dr. Dimitar Kostov and Prof. Dr. Tencho Kolev. The National Institute of Justice and the Lawyers' Training Center have certified his teaching activities.
- Assoc. Prof. Malchev, why do you want to become a member of the SJC - an institution that is often associated more with scandals than with reform? - Precisely because the SJC should not be left to look like a scene of scandals and personnel deals. The Council has powers that directly determine the environment in which each judge works - workload, the selection of administrative leaders, competitions, disciplinary practice, budget, technology. When this power is exercised poorly, the consequences affect the entire society. They are borne by the judge who administers justice under excessive workload, the employee who works with an inconvenient system, and most of all the person who is waiting for a decision on a dispute that is important to his life. I do not perceive membership in the SJC as a professional promotion or a personnel award for special merits. It implies heavy managerial work with a limited mandate, which requires regular public reporting. I am applying because I know the administration of justice at different levels, and my scientific and teaching work has taught me to distinguish between thesis and evidence and to hear strong objections to my own position.
- What is the most serious deficiency in judicial administration today?
- The most visible is the gap between rules and practice. We have strategies, methodologies, reports and a significant amount of data. However, competitions do not end for years, temporary decisions become permanent, the workload remains uneven, and sometimes it is not clear who is responsible for the implementation of a decision and what result was achieved from its application. Inaction is an abuse of power, and when it is permanent, it also becomes a decision. If a competition is not completed, the position remains vacant or is filled by a seconded judge. Cases are distributed among fewer judges, deadlines are extended, candidates and seconded judges remain in uncertainty. Therefore, the delayed competition is a personnel policy, although no one has openly voted for it. I propose a management standard that sounds simple, but changes a lot: every significant problem must lead to a solution with a factual justification, legal basis, responsible executor, deadline, necessary resources and a subsequent report. If the solution does not work, it must be corrected. If the court overturns an act of the Supreme Judicial Council, this is a reason to check and eliminate the violations committed. Management that does not learn from its own mistakes gradually turns them into a tradition.
- You talk about independence. However, this word has been repeated so often that for many citizens it already sounds hollow. What does it mean to you?
- Independence is not a professional privilege of the judge. It is the right of every natural or legal person to have his case decided within a reasonable time according to the law and the facts, without fear, pressure and a previously promised result. An independent judge owes competence, impartiality and clear motives. He does not owe a comfortable result to a politician, leader or economically powerful structure. And he should not pay with his career for refusing to be comfortable.
- Your concept is very detailed. How will you convince people that this is not another well-written document that will be forgotten after the election?
- With deadlines, verifiable results and a personal report. It includes a program for the first thirty and one hundred days, the first year and the end of the mandate. It is not enough to say that we have lightened the workload. We must show where, by what measure and with what result. Every three months I will publish a report on the proposals, principle votes, official meetings and the implementation of the concept. At the end of the mandate I will report each commitment as fulfilled, partially fulfilled or unfulfilled.
- You are nominated by a political force. Who will be your political principal in the SJC?
- I will not have a political principal. The National Assembly elects a member of the body that manages the judiciary, not its own representative in it. The parliamentary election determines the composition of its quota in the SJC, but not the method of voting. The only permissible loyalty of a member of the Council is to the Constitution, the law, proven facts and the same criteria for everyone.
- And if the person who nominated you calls you with a request for “just one vote“?
- I will refuse. Depending on the nature and gravity of the case, I will publicize it and, if necessary, I will notify the competent authorities. Not every meeting is an attempt at influence, but every request for a previously promised vote crosses the institutional boundary. I want to be a predictable member of the SJC. It should be clear what criteria I vote by and that they apply to both relatives and strangers. Integrity does not mean constant conflict with everyone. It means that no one can buy your consent with a promise, favor or fear.
- To what do you attribute the support of judicial organizations and university professors?
- I accept it as recognition of my work and as a responsibility. My colleagues know me and can assess whether the stated principles are supported by consistent behavior. The support of people with different professional experience obliges me to justify their trust with my decisions.
- You insist that the secondment be a short exception, but you yourself have been seconded from the Sofia City Court to the Sofia Court of Appeal since April 2023, a few months after you took office at the Sofia City Court. Isn't this a contradiction?
- The question is valid and I do not want a lenient standard for myself. The specific secondment and the defects of the system model are different issues, but my personal case cannot be an exception to the general principle. As of April 2023, I had 14 years of judicial experience and the rank of "judge in the Supreme Court of Cassation and Supreme Administrative Court". The possibility of secondment was announced to all judges of the City Court of Justice. There were two vacant positions - in the commercial division for one year and in the civil division for one to three months. I submitted documents for the second position, as I was already participating in a pending competition for promotion to the Court of Appeal. The assessment between the candidates was made by a three-member judicial commission, in which the administrative head did not participate. Before the three months expired, more positions became vacant in the Supreme Administrative Court and I accepted the offer to continue my work there. In the first civil division, to which I was assigned, work was organized and collegial. In July 2024, I received a score of 6.00 from the competition committee for promotion to the Court of Appeal, but I remained in the ranking behind colleagues with longer judicial experience, which gives them an advantage in the event of equal scores. This explains the circumstances, but does not change the principle: secondment should not become a substitute for the competition. Competitions must end on time. The rules I propose should also apply to me. My personal experience is another reason to insist on them.
- How will you end the chronic delay in competitions?
- With optimal organization, discipline and specific amendments to the regulation on competitions. Personnel policy must begin before the vacancy. Data on retirement, expiring mandates and workload must be combined into a three-year forecast, updated annually. By the end of January each year, I propose a single public calendar of competitions, attestations and elections of leaders - with stages, deadlines and responsible members of the commissions. Each postponement must have an explanation, which must be accompanied by a new deadline and actions to overcome the delay.
- Where is the line between protecting the judge and covering up his mistakes?
- Within the powers of the Council, equal standards and proven facts. The SJC does not verify the correctness of judicial acts. It must protect the judge from threats, pressure for a specific result and personnel repression. At the same time, a proven guilty violation requires responsibility. A canceled or unpopular act is not in itself a disciplinary violation. Its correctness is verified through an appeal, not through personnel punishment. To increase the effectiveness of disciplinary activity, I will propose a system of traceable deadlines, the preparation of a manual for disciplinary proceedings and a collection of disciplinary practice. Identical cases must be treated equally. The disciplinary authority should be neither an umbrella nor a bat.
- What should the SJC do in the event of a signal of pressure on a judge?
- To act quickly according to a previously known protocol. I propose an initial assessment of the situation within two working days, a protected channel for collecting information, a designated rapporteur, a reasoned decision and subsequent control of the result. In the event of an imminent threat, the response must be immediate and coordinated with the competent authorities, without hindering the investigation.
- Aren't you overly cautious about artificial intelligence?
- Caution is not a fear of technology. It is a respect for the rights that may be affected. Artificial intelligence can assist in information retrieval, transcription, certified translation, depersonalization and administrative work. But it should not decide the dispute instead of the judge, whose responsibility it is. New electronic tools require legal, ethical and technical assessment, cybersecurity review, independent testing and pilot implementation.
- What will you do in the first hundred days if elected?
- In the first thirty days, I will request a review of pending procedures, unimplemented decisions, vacant posts and prolonged secondments. I will announce rules for my own accountability and the prevention of conflicts of interest. By the hundredth day, I will propose a standard for the reasons for decisions, a register for their implementation, a protocol for responding to pressure and a plan for completing pending competitions. I will demand an assessment of key electronic systems and a permanent audit with the participation of users of the Unified Information System of the Courts, with public monitoring of problems and deadlines for their elimination. I do not promise a result that depends on a collective vote. I promise my initiative, my arguments and my report. I will be ready to change my decision in case of proven failure, but not to retreat from the independence, equal standard and dignity of the judicial profession.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mihail Alexandrov Malchev graduated from Sofia University in 2007, and in 2011 he obtained a doctorate in civil and family law. He has been an associate professor since 2019. He taught honorary at the Faculty of Law of Sofia University in the period 2010-2023. Since 2022, he has been an associate professor at the University of Ruse “Angel Kanchev”, and since 2025 - at the Institute of State and Law at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He has worked as a judge since 2009. He has experience in civil, commercial, administrative and administrative-criminal cases. Since 2022, he has been a judge at the Sofia City Court, and since April 2023, he has been seconded to the Sofia Court of Appeal. He is the author of over sixty scientific publications and two monographs, co-author of “Claim Protection in Civil Proceedings” and practical guides. He has taught at the National Institute of Justice, trained lawyers and participated in international specialized trainings.
Source: trud.bg