The Constitutional court annulled the texts affecting the judicial reform. Vladimir Nikolov, the chairman of the Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria, commented on the topic to NOVANEWS, quoted by FOCUS.
"The decision of the Constitutional Court is a victory for normality and thus we proved that the principle of the rule of law is not just a phrase, but has substance. In our opinion, these changes were unfortunate," he said.
"If the people who made the changes to the Constitution had listened to the expert opinion, this result would not have been reached and the judicial reform would not have been abused,' Nikolov also said.
"We categorically did not think that it was within the powers of an ordinary national assembly to fragment the judiciary, to encroach on its unity and independence. Regarding the quotas in the Supreme Prosecutor's Council, we were against it, because if this situation had remained, it would have put the prosecutor's office under complete political, not public, control," the lawyer also pointed out.
He pointed out that there have been suspicions of political interference over the years and precisely because of this it should not have been intensified. "On everyone lies the responsibility of how to prevent this from happening. The process is two-sided – within the system itself, we must cleanse ourselves of these things, but also be helped through adequate and reasonable legislative decisions, and the will of the other authorities", Nikolov also said.
The decision of the Constitutional Court divided the politicians
"We have always supported that the Judicial College should be dominated by judges elected by judges. And here we have no differences with our fellow judges. We support this, but we held that the prosecution should not be handed over to politically powerful entities. The prosecutor's office has no influence on the personnel development of judges. The only authority is in the election of the presidents of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court. Here, too, the Association of Prosecutors made a reasonable suggestion, which was passed over. It was possible that this power would go to the Judicial College, the Attorney General would remain as a plenary power. This would solve the whole complex of problems that is being speculated about. This was not heard and it was moved to voluntary liquidation of the unified judicial system", explained the expert.
"In the current situation, the SJC is resuming its activity and until a new staff is elected, it can continue to exercise its powers. We have a suspended procedure for the election of the chief prosecutor, apparently the term of office of the chairman of the Supreme Court is expiring. This is where the debate should be held," Nikolov also said.
"The elected judges, prosecutors, investigators did not enter into their powers, because the legislative power, in several consecutive parliaments, did not fulfill its obligations and did not complete the so-called parliamentary quota", explained the lawyer.
On the topic of whether there is a mechanism for investigating the chief prosecutor, he pointed out that there is one and that they want the prosecutor's office to be transparent, accountable and under public control. "The other mechanism is the report of the chief prosecutor to the parliament," Nikolov added. He said that the legislative changes in this direction mark an upward development of the prosecution system.