The leader of the faction in DPS around honorary chairman Ahmed Dogan - Jevdet Chakarov made sharp reprimands against the chairman of the 50th National Assembly, Raya Nazaryan. He accuses her of arbitrariness and illegal decisions after her authorization to lift the immunity of investigations into influence peddling of a deputy candidate of the "Alliance for Rights and Freedoms" Ceyhan Ibryamov, who was excluded from the DPS parliamentary group in the last parliament.
Chakarov considers in this case a self-dealing with political opponents during an election campaign and the inability of the Speaker of the National Assembly to correctly apply the Constitution, the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the (CC) Rules for the Organization and Activities of the National Assembly.
He points out that parliamentary immunity is a guarantee of the independence of the legislature against possible arbitrariness on the part of other authorities. According to him, the detention of Ibryamov is unconstitutional and it proves the necessity of immunity in the absence of a stable rule of law and the authority of the judiciary, and the procedure for his removal was not completely followed by Raya Nazaryan in accordance with the legal provisions. Chakarov is left with a feeling of dependencies of the various authorities and sees the prosecutor's office as a tool of individual parties. He points out that only immunity is a defense against prosecutorial and police arbitrariness.
Dzhevdet Chakarov also returns to the exclusion of the Dogan-supporting MPs from the DPS parliamentary group, which marked the beginning of the publicly visible part of the split in the party. According to him, Nazaryan absolutely inadmissibly allowed the formal, illegal and incorrect entry of changes in a public register, which led to severe political consequences - the deletion of 17 people's representatives from the PG of the DPS on July 11, 2024. Chakarov reproaches her that in doing so it did not check whether the group's decision was in accordance with the Statute of the DPS and whether it was taken after notification of holding a meeting of the PG and whether the procedure was followed regarding the presence of the necessary quorum and the majority for its adoption. He also states that the chairman of the National Assembly should be an independent arbiter and not take part in such cases.
TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
MRS RAYA NAZARYAN
DEAR MADAM PRESIDENT,
The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria in Art. 4, para. 1 declares that Bulgaria is a state governed by the rule of law. The rule of law means legality and legal order. But it is one thing to declare a principle, and another to implement it. Illegal actions and a sense of self-dealing with political opponents during an election campaign and the inability of the Speaker of the National Assembly to properly implement the Constitution, the Decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Rules for the Organization and Activities of the National Assembly erode the idea of the rule of law and legality.
Immunity as a legal institution is a guarantee of the independence of the legislative power against possible arbitrariness on the part of other authorities. The continued unconstitutional detention of People's Representative Jeyhan Hasanov Ibryamov is proof that in the absence of a stable rule of law and the authority of the judiciary, immunity is still necessary. Removing the protection of the people's representative would be a step to overcome corrupt practices, if the feeling of dependencies of the various authorities did not remain. At the moment, there are no guarantees for the security of deputies and candidates for people's representatives, the fear from 1991 has returned that the prosecutor's office is a tool of individual parties and only immunity is a protection against prosecutorial and police arbitrariness. Criminal immunity under Art. 70 of the Constitution is a guarantee for the protection of the personality of the people's representatives during their powers. This warranty is not unlimited. However, there is a clear procedure for removing immunity, which you did not follow to the end.
On October 3, 2024, you authorized the initiation of criminal prosecution against Ceyhan Hasanov Ibryamov, a representative of the 50th National Assembly, and left without consideration the request for detention pursuant to Art. 64 of the Civil Code. The provision of Art. 136 of the Civil Code refers only to the hypotheses of Art. 39, para. 2 PDNS, namely when the parliament is on vacation, which is not present, and excludes the hypothesis of Art. 39, para. 5 PODNS, in which the parliament is currently located.
Regarding the authorization to initiate criminal prosecution and the application of Art. 136, para. 6 PODNS cannot be accepted Your claim that "identity exists" between the vacation hypotheses under Art. 39, para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and the hypothesis of non-holding of meetings under Art. 39, para. 5 And this is so, since on the one hand the provision of Art. 39, para. 5 of the National Assembly completely excludes the possibility of holding a meeting - a situation that continues until the convening of the newly elected National Assembly (in practice, there will be no first meeting at which you will submit for approval the permission given by you), and on the other hand § 7, para. 4 of the National Assembly provides for the Chief Secretary of the National Assembly to perform the urgent administrative functions of the Speaker of the National Assembly. Article art. 39, para. 5 PODNS rather impermissibly returns the arrangement of the parliament from before the changes to the Constitution and turns it from a continuous parliament into an "interrupted" one. Therefore, in the specific case, you should have directly applied Art. 70 of the Constitution, as well as Interpretative Decision No. 10 of 1992 under the Code of Criminal Procedure. No. 13 of 1992 of the Constitutional Court. As you yourself indicate in the given permission - "it must be submitted for approval by the people's representatives at the first possible meeting". Such, however, according to Art. 39, para. 5 of the National Assembly is not foreseen, and therefore you were obliged to call an immediate meeting of the National Assembly to decide on the authorization you gave. In Decision No. 10 of 1992, the Constitutional Court explicitly emphasizes that the criminal immunity of deputies "can only be lifted by the National Assembly in the cases under Art. 70 of the Constitution in the case of a serious crime and detention in case of a serious crime. Permission to detain and instigate criminal prosecution for a committed serious crime must be given in advance by the National Assembly, and when it is not in session, by its chairman." However, it is clear from the request of the chief prosecutor that administrative and criminal actions were carried out before the permission given by you on October 3, 2024.
Regarding the detention in Decision No. 10 of 1992, the Constitutional Court explicitly emphasizes that "In case of a serious crime, the representative of the people can be detained without prior permission, but in this case, in the request to the National Assembly for permission to incite prosecution should be requested to continue the detention". The provision of Art. 136, para. 8 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "when the chief prosecutor has made a request for the detention of the representative, the National Assembly shall issue a separate decision". According to the decision of the Constitutional Court and the mentioned provision of the Civil Code, with the rank of law, the Speaker of the National Assembly is not competent to rule on detention. To date, the National Assembly has not been convened and no consent has been given for the continued unconstitutional detention of the People's Representative.
The Speaker of the National Assembly is not an independent authority. Therefore, only the National Assembly, as a state body, can take the final decision on the removal of immunity.
Everything presented so far can only be defined with the word arbitrariness, which in turn leads to violated rights. The President of the National Assembly, explained the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 16 of 1992, is "elected from among the people's representatives to be led by an authoritative and competent person who has the position of "first among equals". He does not, explains the Constitutional Court, "have more rights than other people's representatives in terms of the realization of the essential power functions of the National Assembly... he does not have and has not had the right to a decisive vote or veto.
Although you do not have greater powers than those that every national representative has, you allowed - absolutely inadmissible - a formal, illegal and incorrect entry of changes in a public register to be carried out in the National Assembly, which led to severe political consequences. On July 11, 2024, you made an entry in the public register under Art. 13, para. 2 of the Rules for the Organization and Activities of the National Assembly (promulgated, SG No. 39 of 2023; amended, No. 41 of 2023; amended, No. 42 of 2023; amended, No. 63 and 83 of 2023 and No. 8 and 35 of 2024) and deleted 17 people's representatives from the "Movement for Rights and Freedoms" without checking whether the prerequisites for recording the requested circumstances are present, equating it to a simple filing of documents in the Parliament's registry. You did not check whether the group's decision was taken in the presence of notification of a meeting of the parliamentary group, whether the procedure regarding the presence of a required quorum for holding the meeting and a majority for its adoption was followed, as well as whether it was consistent with the Statute and program documents of a political party "Movement for Rights and Freedoms" about the way decisions are made. Article 13, para. 3 of the repealed Civil Code, in force at the time of registration, which was subsequently hastily amended by the adopted new regulations, clearly indicates the presence of registration. According to Art. 14, para. 2 PNSC the parliamentary group has the autonomy to determine the conditions for the creation, membership and termination of membership, as well as the rights and obligations of its members in accordance with the provisions of the PNSC. In the absence of adopted rules for the group, the rules for the party, established in its statutes, shall apply, insofar as they do not contradict the Civil Code. In accordance with Art. 26, para. 1 of the Charter of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms parliamentary group "Movement for Rights and Freedoms" was formed by the people's representatives elected with the list of the political party "Movement for Rights and Freedoms", evident from the protocol for the formation of the parliamentary group dated June 19, 2024. Pursuant to Art. 28 of the Statute of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms "The parliamentary group carries out its activities on the basis of the Rules of the National Assembly, the Statute of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and the internal Rules of the group". Article 27 of the Statute of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms unequivocally indicates that "the parliamentary group is a function of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and makes decisions regarding its activities in the National Assembly in accordance with the Statute and Program documents of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms" ;.
Parliamentary groups are a form of existence of the political parties within the National Assembly and are the main instrument for political participation in the activities of the parliament. From such a formal decision, which contradicts the spirit and provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Code and the acts of the political party "Movement for Rights and Freedoms", we observe serious consequences for political life in Bulgaria, including the replacement of the electoral vote.
Everything stated above obliges us to become more vigilant. Violation of rights by anyone should raise our indignation more and more, and no more compromises should be made. Representative democracy is clothed in procedures and rules. When they start to be indiscriminately violated by the legislative body - the National Assembly, it means only one thing - that democracy has degenerated!
The Speaker of the National Assembly as "first among equals" must be an independent arbiter and not take sides in decisions with destructive consequences for the legal order, parliamentarism and democracy. As the Speaker of the National Assembly and as a lawyer, you must be aware of the consequences and absurdities of your illegal and incorrect decisions and the political distortions they lead to.
JEVDET CHAKAROV
PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE AND
CHAIRMAN OF THE "MOVEMENT FOR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS"