Loyalty to an institution is not proven by remaining silent about its weaknesses
Real reform is not moving signs, renaming structures or mechanically closing prosecutor's offices
Plamen Petkov is the only prosecutor who works in a prosecutor's office at the regional level among the candidates nominated by the professional quota for the upcoming elections of members of the Supreme Judicial Council. He is currently a prosecutor in the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office. He has more than 20 years of professional experience as an investigator, prosecutor and administrative manager. He also participated in the previous election for the SJC in 2022, when he raised the issues of delayed competitions, prolonged secondments, formal attestation and uneven workload. Four years later, he ran again with the position that unresolved problems do not disappear, and the price for them is paid by working prosecutors. “Trud news“ talked to him about the personnel policy, remuneration, independence and responsibility of the members of the SJC.
- Mr. Petkov, the places from the professional quota for prosecutors in the SJC are 4, and there are 25 candidates. Why should your colleagues choose you? - I don't think that a candidate should explain himself why he is better than the others. Colleagues know the professional biographies of all candidates and can compare not only what we are talking about today, but also how we have behaved over the years. One of the things that sets me apart from the other candidates is my consistency. The problems I am raising now are the same ones I was talking about in 2022, and the position has value only when it does not change with the economic situation. The other is that I offer a perspective that is almost absent among the candidates - that of the district prosecutor. The person who takes on duty every day, resolves a huge number of files and cases, and meets citizens face to face.
- In 2022, you participated in the SJC elections and were not elected. Why are you running again? - The election is over, but the problems that prosecutors face professionally are not. The delayed competitions remained, and secondments continued to replace normal career development. The uneven workload of prosecutors' offices has deepened. Appraisal and disciplinary practice still do not provide sufficient predictability. I am not running again to prove that I was right, but because my colleagues continue to pay the price for the problems that have been unresolved for years. If after the 2022 elections I had forgotten everything I said, I would have shown that my position at that time was only a means to occupy a position. I have not forgotten it, on the contrary, I stand by it even now, because what I said is obligatory.
- Someone may reproach you that this is simply a stubborn personal ambition for a place in the Supreme Judicial Council. What would you tell them? - There is no point in any candidate pretending that they do not have professional ambition. The question is what this ambition is and how it is realized. The Supreme Judicial Council should not be perceived as a promotion or a reward. This is a place where one takes responsibility for the career, independence and working conditions of everyone else. I am not looking for a higher position, but an opportunity to solve the problems that I know from the first instance.
- But is the experience at the regional level sufficient to manage the entire judicial system? - The regional level is my current professional position, but it does not exhaust my experience. I started as an investigator. I have worked as a prosecutor in the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office, I have been seconded to other prosecutor's offices and I have been the administrative head of the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Slivnitsa. I know the system from different places. But I have not forgotten where it begins. The prosecution does not begin in the Supreme Court of Justice and it does not begin in the meeting room of the Supreme Judicial Council. It begins where the case file has a human face, the decision cannot be postponed and the responsibility has a specific name.
- You are talking about reform. This is one of the most used words in the judicial system. What does it mean specifically for you? - Real reform is not about moving signs, renaming structures or mechanically closing prosecutor's offices. It starts with a simple principle - resources must follow work. This means that where there is a permanent workload, there must be enough prosecutors and employees. Where there is a resource without a corresponding volume of work, it must be reallocated.
- In your concept, you give the Supreme Prosecutor's Office as an example of an inflated staff. Aren't you setting prosecutors at different levels against each other? - Colleagues in the Supreme Prosecutor's Office are not the problem. The problem is the personnel policy, which actually depends on the Supreme Judicial Council. With 144 prosecutors, the Supreme Prosecutor's Office is the second largest prosecutor's office in the country after the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office. At the same time, the first instance carries the enormous daily load and is chronically understaffed. These data should be analyzed openly. If someone thinks that the current distribution is correct, let them defend it with specific indicators of work, workload and responsibility. I am not proposing mechanical layoffs. I am proposing functional analysis and personnel decisions that follow the real work. This is not a confrontation between colleagues, but a requirement for fair management.
- You are also criticizing the way in which salaries are being increased. Do you want equalization of salaries? - No. Different work and different responsibilities can justify different salaries. But any difference must be reasonably defensible. With the same percentage increase, the amount by which the salary of a prosecutor in the Supreme Court of Justice increases can be almost double that of a prosecutor in a district prosecutor's office. The percentage is the same, but the difference is growing. This shows that a mechanical increase "on a cap" is not an adequate solution. The same percentage on different bases increases the differences in salaries. Before any general increase, the Supreme Judicial Council must present how it will affect magistrates and employees at different levels. Professional rank must also have real financial significance, including for the colleague who remains working in a first-instance prosecutor's office.
- What is the first personnel decision you will insist on? - Annual competitions according to a pre-announced calendar. Before the beginning of the year, every prosecutor must know what competitions are coming up, when they start and by what deadline they must end. The progress of each procedure must be public, and any delay must be explained. The professional and life plan of a magistrate cannot be left in the dark for years. If the personnel authority cannot organize its own competitions within a reasonable time, it can hardly claim to be managing the system well.
- In your opinion, should the secondment of prosecutors be abolished? - It should not be abolished. There are situations in which it is necessary to overcome a sudden staff shortage. It should be a temporary solution, not become a permanent career mechanism. The secondment should be explicitly motivated, limited in time and periodically checked. Promotion to a higher prosecutor's office should only be done through a competitive procedure.
- The workload in prosecutor's offices has been measured for years. Why is uniformity not achieved? - Because the measurement too often ends with a single report. This measurement has been done for years and nothing has changed. I am of the opinion that when the data shows a permanent overload, a specific measure should follow - a new staff, a competition, a reallocation of resources or a change in the organization. The workload is not just the number of files. The complexity of the proceedings, the on-call time, participation in court hearings, additional tasks and the specifics of the respective prosecutor's office must be taken into account. A report that does not lead to a decision is not a management tool. It is just another report.
- You write in your concept that the attestation creates cautious prosecutors. Shouldn't there still be a strict assessment of the results? - Of course there should be. But a strict assessment does not mean mechanical counting. A revoked act or an acquittal does not automatically prove unprofessionalism. The quality of the legal analysis, the motives, the organization of the work, the integrity and the ability to make independent judgments must be assessed. If we punish every conscientious mistake, we will not create faultless prosecutors. We will create frightened prosecutors who are looking not for the right solution, but for the safest one. The prosecution does not need people who never take professional risks. It needs magistrates who can make a difficult decision, motivate it and bear responsibility for it.
- Where is the line between independence and lack of control? - It lies in clear rules and motivated responsibility. A real violation must have consequences. But a professional mistake is not necessarily a disciplinary violation, and a different legal assessment is not disobedience. Similar cases must be decided according to the same and previously clear standards - regardless of the name, position and proximity to the management. Responsibility without rules turns into arbitrariness. Independence without responsibility turns into a privilege. The prosecution does not need either.
- During the previous election, you were critical of the management of the prosecutor's office, and the then Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev demonstratively left the hall during your speech. What did that mean to you? - This is his decision - he chose to leave, I chose to finish my speech. Despite his decision, my position did not change and I continued to defend it. I do not consider myself a hero. Fulfilling your professional duty is not a feat. But loyalty to an institution is not proven by remaining silent about its weaknesses. It is proven by the willingness to name them and work to overcome them.
- Do you think that this criticality has hindered your career? - I do not know and I will not speculate. I do not accept working in a district prosecutor's office as a punishment or as a sign of failure. A huge part of the real prosecutor's work is done there. Career is not the only measure of professional value. And a promotion that must be bought with comfortable silence would have a very high price.
- This year you were among the three approved national candidates for European Prosecutor. Then the entire procedure was canceled. Doesn't your participation in various procedures show a desire simply for the next high position? - I appeared in an open procedure, went through a public hearing and was among the three candidates selected by the commission. Subsequently, the Council of Ministers withdrew the entire procedure because of the way in which the rules and the composition of the commission were determined, and not on the basis of an individual negative assessment of one of the candidates. I accept this decision. In personnel procedures, the rules must be impeccable - including when the result is favorable to me. I will not claim that I do not have professional ambition. I do, but it is honorable when it goes through an open procedure and is associated with a willingness to take responsibility. My candidacy for the SJC is not a consolation prize. It is a continuation of positions that I stated back in 2022.
- Doesn't the prosecutor's office weaken the constant criticism of itself? - Silence weakens it even more. The institution does not defend itself by denying its obvious problems. It defends itself by solving them. Criticism based on facts and accompanied by a specific proposal is not an attack. It is a form of institutional loyalty. Criticism that only aims to destroy is harmful. Silence that protects someone's comfort is equally harmful.
- How can the SJC restore the trust of ordinary prosecutors? - By first hearing them and then deciding. Members of the SJC should not visit prosecutors' offices only when they need votes. They should meet with prosecutors from different levels after the elections, and know the differences between individual regions, and hear the problems before they turn into crises. Not every request can be satisfied, but every question raised deserves an answer. When action is possible, there must be action. When it is not, there must be an honest and motivated explanation.
- Can one member of the SJC really change anything? - One member of the SJC does not have a majority. But he has a vote, the right to propose and personal responsibility. One vote may not change the final result. But it may show that there was another possible choice. It may force the majority to present reasons, and it may also convince the majority of the correctness of the proposed changes. I do not promise a result that depends on the entire council. I promise behavior that depends on me. I will not remain silent when I see injustice. I will not vote conveniently and then justify myself with the majority. I will propose solutions and explain each of my votes.
- And if you are left alone in this position? - Just because someone is in opposition does not mean that they should not name the problems and work to solve them. Loneliness is not an argument. The majority also does not turn an incorrect decision into a correct one. But I do not seek loneliness and I do not want to play the role of the eternal oppositionist. I will seek support for any reasonable decision. The difference is that I will not trade principles to get it.
- How will the prosecutors be able to check whether you are fulfilling your promises? - Every year I will present a public report: what I have proposed, how I voted on significant personnel and organizational issues, what has been achieved, what has not been fulfilled and why. Trust is not a power of attorney for silence, but an obligation of accountability. A member of the Supreme Judicial Council should not disappear behind the collective responsibility of the council. A collective decision does not erase the personal voice.
- What do you want to say to the prosecutors before the election? - Not to vote only based on biography, position or promise. Let them compare what each candidate said years ago and what he says today. Let them assess whether his positions have remained the same when they were inconvenient and when no personal benefit followed from them. I do not want to be elected just because I am the only candidate from the district level. I want to be assessed on whether I know the problems, whether I propose feasible solutions and whether I can be counted on not to forget the commitments made after the elections. For me, the rule is simple - what is said is binding. And first of all, the one who said it is binding.
Our guest Plamen Petkov is a Master of Laws. He graduated from the South-West University “Neofit Rilski”. After successfully completing his training at the National Institute of Public Prosecutors, in 2004 he began his professional career in the judicial system as an investigator at the District Investigation Service-Yambol, then he was transferred to the Sofia Investigation Service. In 2006 he was appointed as a prosecutor at the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office, where he worked until 2018, when, after a competition, he was elected as the administrative head of the District Prosecutor's Office-Slivnitsa. After the closure of the prosecutor's office and its transformation into a Territorial Department in 2023, Plamen Petkov returned to the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office, where he works as a prosecutor to this day.
Source: trud.bg