There is a legal obstacle to holding the election of the chief prosecutor and of the President of the SAC - it is expressed in the fact that in the provision of paragraph 23, paragraph 2 of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution, a temporary ban is introduced for the current composition of the SJC to conduct this election of the so-called three big ones in the judicial system, and at the moment the question is not only about electing the president of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC). This was stated by Olga Kerelska, a member of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), to the BNR, who voted against the opening of the two procedures - for the election of the chief prosecutor and the president of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
According to her, the cited provision was not expressly canceled by the decision of the Constitutional Court, which canceled a significant part of the changes in the Constitution:
"I believe that this issue should be clarified before moving on to opening such procedures, submitting applications and holding the election itself.
She was categorical that there is currently no legal possibility to stop the procedure for the two elections.
Olga Kerelska pointed out that the mandate of the SJC expired 2 years ago:
"And to be even more clear - we entered our third year after the expiration of our regular mandate. The question is whether we, with this expired mandate, have the authority to elect the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court. Here the opinions of lawyers are divided. ... I think that this issue should be clarified by the Constitutional Court".
In her words, by the dates for the election of the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the SAC, the composition of the SCC will be 20 people, i.e. "our composition is very incomplete and it would be good to answer this question as well - does it matter if this majority of 17 votes for the president of the SAC is not provided for in a composition of the SJC of 25 people, I think that is exactly the idea of the legislator and it is written in the law".
For some of the important decisions of the SJC, there is pressure from outside, stated Olga Kerelska and recalled the words of the former chief prosecutors Ivan Geshev and Sotir Tsatsarov, that important decisions of the SJC "are taken elsewhere" - "in two or three buildings that do not coincide with the SCC building.
"Some actions of the SJC really give grounds for doubts in this direction", she added and commented:
"I am not optimistic that the judicial system could solve its problems on its own, because I do not think that it has created the problems itself and reproduces them itself. These are things that come from outside. The invisible intervention that destroys the system and creates the problems in it is dangerous. The vicious interference in the work of the judiciary is covert interference. It is not dangerous for the Minister of Justice to make a proposal for the chief prosecutor and chairman of the Supreme Court, because it is so by law, and I do not think that this is at all an interference in the independence of the judiciary. Hidden influences, undercurrents and influences that are exerted on the governing bodies of the judiciary and on specific judges when deciding a case are dangerous.
According to her, with political will, interference in the activities of the SJC and all bodies of judicial power can be stopped.