Author: Emi Baruch
"A situation in which the supreme judges do not recognize the Prosecutor General is absolutely intolerable for the rule of law, which requires that some action be taken to overcome this situation," said Andrey Yankulov. He convenes a meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council, the only item on the agenda of which is the following: the appointment of an interim prosecutor general.
This is not just a key decision by the acting Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, but the long-awaited beginning of a turning point in the interwoven magma of Bulgarian justice.
Defendants and accusers, lawyers and prosecutors, witnesses and jurors, arbitrators and substitutes - all of them participate in the complex structure of a criminal proceeding in different ways. From the way they perform their roles, we expect compliance with the fundamental principle of the modern legal system - that the state's repressive power should not be concentrated in one institution. The guarantor of this is His Majesty the Court.
The Court is not just an arbitrator; it is the institution that must ensure equality of arms and limit the abuse of procedural power.
The issue becomes more complicated when the court itself is put under pressure - political, institutional or media. If the judge finds himself in a position of illegitimate influence, the balance between competing rights is shaken. And when this balance is shaken, so is trust in the system itself. The independence of the court is a condition for the existence of a democratic order. And a democratic order excludes the possibility of the prosecution holding the judge to account for the acts he has issued. Even less of checking the judges for their beliefs.
Popular culture often uses this tense axis as a dramatic engine. In the series "The Lincoln Lawyer" (The Lincoln Lawyer) the opposition between the defense and the prosecution is presented as a dynamic clash of strategies, but at its core lies a deeper theme -ndash; the moral and institutional role of the judge as a guarantor of balance.
There are emblematic examples in Bulgaria of disturbing this balance, of putting pressure on Bulgarian magistrates, namely by the prosecutor's office.
A few examples from Bulgaria
We remember the criticisms of Lozan Panov as President of the Supreme Court of Cassation against the prosecutor's office model, which became a symbol of the tension between the supreme courts and the prosecutor's office. We remember the removal of Judge Miroslava Todorova - one of the most recognizable critics of political interference and dependencies in the judicial system, which led to ostentatious repressions against her by the SJC. We remember the statements made before parliamentary committees about attempts to influence judges. Judge Vladislava Tsarigradska publicly stated that she was the subject of systematic pressure and threats. And prosecutor Nevena Zartova, who resigned as head of the SRP, made revelations about a criminal network operating against judges. "The Family" - something like a Bulgarian version of Cosa Nostra.
"Warnings" to critical magistrates are very diverse. They aim to demonstrate strength on the part of the prosecutor's office, which has more than once taken on the role of a body controlling the "correctness" of the court decision. However, few of them become public knowledge.
"Most colleagues are afraid to speak"
"Unfortunately, most colleagues are afraid to speak. I try to understand them - they have families, children, they have loans that they have to pay off. They are scared. Some even for their lives," claims the judge from the Sofia District Court, Miroslav Petrov. It was he who became widely known in the professional community after he sought public and institutional protection of his independence due to a verification of his internal convictions in specific cases by the prosecutorial authorities. Over the years, various forms of pressure have been exerted on him by representatives of the prosecutor's office due to his critical position regarding their activities. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Judge Petrov by the acting chairman of the Sofia District Court - a former prosecutor. The official reason was procedural - the return of an indictment due to established procedural violations.
"The goal was to be professionally executed. This was a heavy blow to my professional dignity, because I thought that if I was conscientious, obeyed the law and did my job properly, no one would attack me. But it turned out that was not the case." This is what Miroslav Petrov shared with me. He continued: "Judges who do not issue acts in accordance with the expectations of prosecutors are threatened by some kind of repression, which can be exercised against them, albeit by seemingly legitimate means".
The persistent feeling of political influence, internal hierarchical dependence and opacity in personnel decisions lead to the fact that conflicts between the prosecutor's office and the court are interpreted not as professional disagreements, but as a symptom of a systemic imbalance.
But what kind of country is it in which judges are afraid to act independently and objectively? In which few dare to speak publicly about the prosecutorial harassment they have been subjected to?
It has even reached the point where some prosecutors are trying to "re-educate" judges for their critical attitude towards the work of the prosecution. The prosecutor from the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office, Yordan Petrov, allowed himself to accuse Judge Miroslav Petrov of "the wrong way of thinking", of signs of "overly liberal views", which is a blatant attempt to stigmatize a judge as prone to "staggering in the wrong direction".
Due to the systematic attacks on judicial independence, at the beginning of this year, Judge Petrov sent a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which should answer whether European legislation allows prosecutors to verify the correctness of judicial acts and propose judges for disciplinary punishment. The preliminary reference itself notes that "the taking of such "disciplinary measures" against judges in the Republic of Bulgaria by the prosecutor's office and the challenge to their judicial competence, taking into account the model of its functioning approved by the legislator and the uncontrolled power to bring persons to criminal liability, inevitably threaten judicial independence and seriously risk the direct application of European legislation", as well as that "the lack of effective guarantees of independence practically turns the administration of justice in the Republic of Bulgaria into an activity with high professional risk, due to the real danger of repressive disciplinary and criminal proceedings, and this permanent threat in itself leads to self-censorship and undermines the rule of law". A preliminary reference case C-2/26 has been filed and a ruling is pending.
"Justice cannot be held hostage by one person"
Who sets the "right compass" and determines the directions in the field of justice? Where is the line between disciplinary liability and institutional pressure? Is there an effective mechanism for protecting judges from attempts at pressure? Is there sufficient transparency in the inspections of magistrates? There are many questions. No one expects the plenary session of the Supreme Judicial Council on February 26 with a single item on the agenda: determining an interim prosecutor general to provide an answer. But that is where it must start.
Against the backdrop of the "intolerable state of justice in Bulgaria" Minister Yankulov expects "The Plenum of the Supreme Judicial Council to accept its competence" because justice in Bulgaria cannot be "hostage to one person and his unwillingness to step down from office".
The opposition "prosecutors – judges" is a diagnosis of the degrees of tolerance of society against arbitrariness, of its resistance. Because it concerns not just specific cases, but the issue of the rule of law. The existence of doubts about pressure on judges is a signal of tension in the very structure of the state. In a democratic society, the judiciary is the last barrier against the impudence and atrocities of those in power.