Judge Tatyana Zhilova tells FAKTI: Information about the wiretapping of judges is being concealed by the Supreme Judicia

The judicial system is once again at the center of public tension – this time because of alarming data on the use of special intelligence means against magistrates, suspicions of concealment of information by the Supreme Judicial Council and deep-rooted practices of political influence. Against this background, the debate on morality, transparency and the real independence of the judiciary is emerging with new force. The question is no longer just whether there is a problem, but whether there is even a will to solve it – and who controls those who are supposed to guarantee justice. Judge Tatyana Zhilova, former chairwoman of the Union of Judges and currently a judge at the European Patent Court, spoke to FACTI.

- Judge Zhilova, we have witnessed a serious shake-up in the judicial system with the resignation of Borislav Sarafov from the post of Acting Prosecutor General. What processes can this unblock?
- I would not define the resignation of Borislav Sarafov and the transfer of responsibility to his deputy Vanya Stefanova as a shake-up in the judicial system. Even less do I think that this will unblock opportunities for cleaning up the judicial system. The best result at the moment is that we will have a legitimate Acting Prosecutor General and his acts will not be able to be challenged in court, but will stand.

- And now the new Acting Prosecutor General will have a mandate of 6 months?
- Yes, exactly. There is already a regulated period in which Vanya Stefanova can perform this function - six months. The interpretation of the so-called "status quo" is no longer valid. So far, only the Prosecutor's College has refused to accept the reverse action. From now on, the person holding the position has six months. If a new Supreme Judicial Council and a new Prosecutor General are not elected within this period, a new acting Prosecutor General will have to be appointed again.

- Can this be seen as the beginning of deeper processes of reform or normalization of the judicial system?
- I would rather not define it as the beginning of any serious reforms. This is a normal action that should have happened much earlier. We can talk about a step towards normalization, but not a real reform. Borislav Sarafov's actions to resign are simply normal, but this should have happened a long time ago. In general, his actions remain difficult to explain. In his statement, he stated that he had long considered resigning, but had been waiting for political stabilization so as not to further destabilize the state and the prosecutor's office. As a lawyer, I cannot accept that compliance with the law can lead to destabilization.

- Ivan Demerdzhiev posted a rather harsh post on social networks, and hours later Borislav Sarafov resigned. Is this a good coincidence…
- It is possible. We saw that even one post by Ivan Demerdzhiev caused a serious reaction and may have influenced the processes in the prosecutor's office. But we cannot be sure that this is the only factor. There are probably other circumstances that are not publicly known. There was also a threat of spectacular actions around the office of the Prosecutor General, but I do not think that this played any role. The competence of the acting Prosecutor General does not end with the sealing of the office. This has more of a symbolic meaning – a spectacular action for society. In reality, he can exercise his functions from any other office. I do not think that such actions were decisive for his resignation.

- In the end, where is the judicial system heading?
- We can say that there is a movement towards more normal functioning, but whether this will develop into real reform - remains to be seen. For now, we are talking more about catching up on missed actions than about deep change.

- You often say that you put morality above professionalism. How can this criterion be used in determining the new members of the Supreme Judicial Council. We have heard such requests from the new rulers?
- Yes, these are the requests of the new rulers, but in my opinion, a broad public consensus should be sought. First, a clear profile of the candidates for members of the Supreme Judicial Council should be developed, which should then be evaluated by an independent body - for example, a nomination or auxiliary committee to the parliament. This profile should strongly emphasize personal qualities - motivation, reputation, integrity, independence and the ability to resist pressure and balance different interests. The most important thing is to look back - what these people have done over the years. Professional deficits can be made up for, but morality - not. A person who has made compromises and been dependent cannot suddenly become moral just with a declaration. As it says in the Bible - "by their deeds you will know them". Biographies are key.

- Does this mean that professionalism remains in the background?
- No, it is also important, but it is not enough. Over the years, we have seen different prosecutors general - professors, judges who studied at the Ministry of Interior Academy, people with different professional profiles - and the result was the same: a collapse in public trust. This shows that professionalism alone does not guarantee justice.

- What other criteria should be included in the selection?
- In addition to morality, there must also be management capacity, communication skills, and understanding of budget processes. Members of the Supreme Judicial Council work in different committees and must be able to make decisions in different areas. But the basis must be the same - morality.
- Is it possible to avoid scandals like previous cases?
- Only if a real, not a formal, selection is made. Dependencies, connections with political or economic circles must be avoided. If this does not happen, we risk repeating the same mistakes. We must not approach formally – to choose “convenient“ people instead of independent individuals. This will reproduce the problem instead of solving it. The moral criterion must be underestimated. If it is ignored, whatever reforms are made, the result will be the same.

- In the end, which is more important: morality or professionalism?
- Morality. Professionalism can be built, but the lack of morality destroys the entire system.

- A few days ago, Judge Tsarigradska said that special intelligence means were used against many magistrates in a not the most appropriate way. How do you view this?
- This is extremely worrying. What is even more worrying is that this information is being concealed very strictly and meticulously by the Supreme Judicial Council. Despite the cases that were conducted under the Law on Access to Public Information, it was not provided. This violates the independence of the court and is a very strong mechanism for building dependencies. This should not be allowed in any way.

- Do you have any idea who are affected and what is being commented on in judicial circles? How can it be counteracted?
- There is a procedure by which the use of SRC is permitted. The point is that this procedure has been violated. From now on, the law must simply be respected and the powers given to the institutions not abused.

- Why do you think the concept of “parliamentary quota“ should not be used? in the SJC?
- Neither in the Constitution, nor in the Judiciary Act, nor in any other normative act does there exist such a concept as a “parliamentary quota“. It was imposed in public discourse in order to distinguish between the two parts - the one elected by the professional community and the one elected by the parliament. By calling the members elected by the parliament a “parliamentary quota“, the meaning and spirit of the law is lost. The idea is that this part of the SJC represents the participation of society in the management of the judiciary, not political control over it. If we continue to talk about “parliamentary quota”, we are actually accepting political influence as something normal. This hinders any efforts to depoliticize the judicial system. The public quota is an opportunity for society to send its representatives to the SJC, not for political parties to send their people. This requires a change in thinking and in the way we talk about these processes. We need to get back to the basics – public control, not political influence. We just need to respect the law and stop accepting political interference as normal in the judicial system.