In the program "More from the Day" on BNT, constitutional law lecturer Assoc. Prof. Borislav Tsekov said that he agrees with the actions of the ruling party, which earlier today finally cut off all ways in which President Rumen Radev could have influenced the selection of heads of the security services.
"The incumbent president should be stripped of certain powers, such as control over the services, over certain regulators, since they were granted by the National Assembly with the correct assessment that the presidential power should have a say in the selection of such, but during his second term, Mr. Radev left the territory of the presidential power and began to lead a quasi-party policy, to fight with the parliamentary parties", Assoc. Prof. Tsekov stated, quoted by novini.bg.
"This is not normal behavior and therefore for this specific case, for this specific president, it is normal for the parliament to reconsider granting such powers. In this case, the balance of powers has been violated by the president. The balance requires that the head of state be a neutral authority, which is violated in this case. If the next president respects his role as a neutral authority, I hope that the next parliament will restore these powers," the constitutionalist added.
He also commented on the bill submitted yesterday and withdrawn today by "There is such a people", which provides for imprisonment from 1 to 6 years for distributing personal information in the media, including on social networks, without the consent of the specific person.
It is an absolute disgrace that such a bill can be submitted to parliament overnight. In a democratic society, such laws have no place, stressed Assoc. Prof. Borislav Tsekov.
In connection with the case of the acting Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov, Assoc. Prof. Tsekov said: "It is extremely worrying that after the adoption of the legal amendments related to the acting Prosecutor General, until recently it was undoubtedly believed that they did not apply to existing cases, now we have a different interpretation by two judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation. All this shows a poorly formulated law. The big problem is that we have divergent interpretations and it is high time for the National Assembly to sit down and elect a Supreme Judicial Council or decide what they want and write a clear legal form – does it apply to existing cases or not".