The Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) has accepted that Bulgaria does not have a legitimate Prosecutor General in the person of Borislav Sarafov, who is holding the position temporarily. What a situation we are in… Andrey Yankulov, senior legal expert at the Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF), speaks to FACT.
- Mr. Yankulov, according to the Supreme Court of Cassation, after 21.07.2025 Bulgaria will not have an acting Prosecutor General, because his powers have been terminated by law. According to the prosecutor's college at the SJC, this is not the case. Who is right…
- Entering into legal disputes about what exactly the interpreted text of the Judiciary Law prescribes is pointless, since everyone is clear about the will of the people's representatives who voted for the law in question with an overwhelming majority. Namely, that there cannot be temporary prosecutors general and chairmen of supreme courts for a period of more than six months. It was quite logical to set such a time limit, because there is no way that a specific person could occupy a serious position of power in the judiciary unlimited by any term. Where does the "temporary" go when there is no term? We shouldn't even need an explicit legal text for such a thing. A long time ago, those who appointed Sarafov as "temporary prosecutor general" should have realized for themselves that he could not be temporary for years. And that otherwise serious lawyers (at least by job description) are looking for the semicolon in a specific legal text that is clear in meaning and will of those who created it, so that they can twist it so that Borislav Sarafov or Georgi Cholakov can actually be the chief prosecutor, respectively the chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court, indefinitely, only shows the state of the rule of law in Bulgaria.
- The Supreme Court of Cassation also refuses to consider two requests for the reopening of criminal cases signed by Borislav Sarafov in his capacity as acting chief prosecutor. What signal is this?
- The signal is that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court believes that Sarafov is an illegitimate chief prosecutor and therefore refuses to consider his requests to it. That is, whenever he submits a request to the Supreme Administrative Court, it should be rejected on the same grounds, since it is claimed that this is the opinion of the entire Criminal Chamber. It is likely that the other courts will also comply with this opinion, although it does not have the force of an interpretative decision, i.e. a mandatory instruction on how the law should be applied.
- Borislav Sarafov transferred several cases from catastrophes as Acting Prosecutor General. What follows. Are these cases legal…
- All acts of Borislav Sarafov after the date 21.07.2025, issued in the capacity of Acting Prosecutor General, are by a person who cannot issue such, because his powers have been terminated by virtue of the law. Whether Sarafov, you or I will issue decrees calling ourselves “Acting Prosecutor General“ after this date, it makes no difference. What the specific procedural impact on specific cases will be and whether these are acts that undermine the entire criminal proceedings must be assessed by those who will decide the cases.
- Many of your colleagues claim that we have a constitutional crisis, since the Supreme Court does not recognize the Prosecutor General as legitimate. Is that so …
- Without any doubt. The Prosecutor General does not exist in a vacuum, he is a constitutional body in the judicial system and heads an institution with enormous power in criminal proceedings (through powers and outside of it). Since the highest instance in criminal cases believes that there is no legitimate Prosecutor General, and he sits in the office and in fact continues to be so, this is a huge crisis of the rule of law in general.
- And the appointments he made, the changes, the orders of Sarafov - what happens to them?
- Any act or action of Sarafov after 21.07. in the capacity of acting chief prosecutor, as I already said, it is as if you or I had issued it.
- According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, we do not have a chief prosecutor, but how does the prosecution work then…
- The Prosecutor's Office operates without a Prosecutor General, which means that the figure who, according to a number of decisions of the Constitutional Court, "concentrates and personalizes the ultimate responsibility for the lawful exercise of prosecutors' powers by them, while also creating an additional guarantee for the accurate and uniform application of laws within the prosecutor's office" is absent. This means that for several months, a prosecutor's office has been operating in our country without the necessary guarantees for the accurate and uniform application of laws by prosecutors (according to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court). As we recall from the repealed amendments to the Constitution, according to the Constitutional Court, it turned out that the Prosecutor General is an extremely important figure in our constitutional order and his constitutional powers can only be limited by the Grand National Assembly. Since this is the case, the lack of a Chief Prosecutor undoubtedly means that neither the institution of the Prosecutor's Office can function legally, and hence our justice system as a whole.
- What can the Supreme Judicial Council do with its expired mandate in this case? Or will we “hang“ like this until the deputies fill the Supreme Judicial Council with regular members…
- The Supreme Judicial Council with its expired mandate can and should appoint someone as a temporary acting Chief Prosecutor, because there is currently no one. Regardless of the fact that his mandate has expired, he can and should end the current extremely intolerable situation.
- How long can this “hanging“ situation last…
- The situation can actually last indefinitely. The question is not whether “can“ – anything is possible, we have seen all sorts of perversions of law and life logic when they are in the interest of those who exercise real power in justice. The question is whether and how long it "should" continue, if we want to be at least some semblance of a state governed by the rule of law. From this point of view, not only should it not continue for another day, but it should have been stopped long ago.