An entirely legal issue was given a political overtone, since the very beginning and all concerned felt obliged to respond.
This is what he said about “Focus" lawyer Lyudmil Rangelov on the occasion of the changes in the Law on the Bar.
According to him, the president's veto does not cover all amendments, but a narrower circle, focusing on those concerning the special representative in the process. "The special representative is appointed in cases where one of the parties in the process is absent. The court sends a letter to the bar council in the area where the case is being heard and the bar council appoints the special representative to defend the missing party. His remuneration was determined by the court, according to the complexity of the case and the amount of material interest. With the changes, this fee is determined by the relevant bar council of the area where the case is being heard. These changes contradict a provision of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Art. 101, para. 1, which generally speaking concerns competition. With this change, the bar council determines the price of labor, which could not be adjusted by the court, except in cases of excessive remuneration", explained the lawyer.
In his words, the defects are that no one knows the case better than the judge who until now has determined the reward. "And the judges have reason to be reproached, because sometimes they set shamefully low rewards. The letter for the appointment of a special representative to the bar council states that such a lawyer is wanted and indicates what the claim is, what the cost is. The Bar Council cannot assess the complexity and duration of such proceedings. On the basis of conflict with the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, it was struck down earlier this year by Decision EU 438 of 2022, which stated that the Regulation on Minimum Lawyers' Fees was completely contrary to that Treaty and provisions and as such was null and void.< /p>
Namely, in this Ordinance and the minimum attorney's fees specified in it for various types of cases and activities, it was a basis on which the judges could orientate themselves, so as not to end up with shameful fees. Now that this provision has ceased to be applied, the judges have already completely freed their hands to evaluate the lawyer's work, and in many cases they evaluate it in an insulting, humiliating way. This work is highly qualified, intellectual, no less complex and responsible than the work of a judge", comments Lyudmil Rangelov.
He drew attention to the fact that there was no debate during the adoption of this Law in the National Assembly: "They underestimated the intricacies, ignorance of the law and the decisions of the EU court. And that's where these gaps came from. In the Law Commission in Parliament, most of its members are lawyers. Even if someone had pointed out legal defects, out of solidarity with their colleagues, they closed their eyes and proposed to the plenary hall to adopt the bill as it was written", noted the lawyer.
"If the plenary hall respects the president's veto, and it is necessary to correct this matter in accordance with European law, the best solution is to have an intensive discussion between good lawyers with different opinions, conflicting, sharp, intensive discussion. When arguments are presented by good jurists, anyone else, even if of the opposite opinion, would accept, if well argued, the opinion which he did not initially share. That will clear things up. These changes were made on the basis of the unification of two bills.
One bill was drafted by the Ministry of Justice and submitted by the Council of Ministers, the other bill was submitted by a group of people's representatives. The bill submitted by the Council of Ministers has passed everything that the Law on Normative Acts requires - discussion, risks, financing, etc. While the other submitted by the people's representatives was joined to this one and did not go through all the procedures. This is also pointed out as a procedural defect in the president's veto," Ludmil Rangelov stressed.
"If the deputies reject the president's veto, the judges will not apply the provisions of this law as they are anyway, because European legislation takes precedence in such cases. They will comply both with the decisions of the EU Court and with the provision of Art. 101, para. 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. All this noise is somehow parasitic," concluded lawyer Ludmil Rangelov