Yes, but more likely not. Or in order to see, the parliament will have to work, /which is not very typical of it/ and work with intelligence and reason, /which is not at all typical of it/.
I think there is public agreement on the issue that people whose mandate has expired /such are practically all in the SJC/ should not elect the three big ones in the judicial system. Because, whatever one may say, the dog is buried there, and the judicial system of Bulgaria does not “provide” to its citizens what it is called for – justice for all. And the problems are both legislative and personnel.
This was commented on "Facebook" Diana Damyanova.
We have a fact. 22 of the members /if I'm not mistaken/ of the SJC have expired mandates and whether we like it or not, it leads to doubts about the moral /legal/ right of these people to elect other people with long mandates.
Public consent - good.
But what's next.
His Majesty the Parliament is about to elect new representatives to the SJC. Something that the last 4-5 parliaments failed to do, even though the one in the “assembly” had the fully sufficient 160-person majority to do so. However, the question of whether to give Peevski a quota seemed to cause the assembly to explode and actually led to the people with expired mandates remaining unchanged, whom the same people in the assembly claim are entirely Peevski's. Does that sound crazy to you?
So now, after the changes to the constitution, 160 votes will have to be gathered again /from where/ to elect new representatives to the Supreme Judicial Council. If the new assembly takes place, about 30-40 more votes will be needed to make this happen, and that's assuming that the PPDB votes unanimously. So, we'll need either some DPS or some, God forbid, revival. Oh my God, how this is achieved is not at all clear to me and it seems completely impossible to me.
But, let's see.
People from the professional quota must also be elected. Such a choice was made electronically /you cannot help but remember the accusation that dozens, even hundreds of people voted from one IP address/ and was subsequently canceled by the parliament.
Now, in order to hold such a choice, either a new public procurement for electronic voting /kind of wait another two years/ or to go with what is currently provided by the National Assembly legislator.
Be careful, this is where it gets interesting. The National Assembly legislator has provided for paper voting in 5 /I repeat five/ ballot boxes for the approximately 2,500 judges for the election of the judicial quota. This practically means ballot boxes in the 5 largest cities, and the poor judge from Vidin or Svishtov, or Harmanli or Tsarevo will “run” to the big city to cast the ballot. I will not comment on how likely this is and what real representation it will lead to.
Of course, the Supreme Court legislator can change this figure of 5 /I repeat five/ ballot boxes, but he - the Supreme Court legislator is so busy that he is unlikely to deal with some trifles, such as how to conduct a truly democratic election from the judicial quota.
But the problem does not end here, it begins right here.
First - this election is subject to judicial control. Ergo - let's say at least 6 months, if the election is carried out.
And now - the icing on the cake - the members of the Supreme Court /by law/ come into power AT THE SAME TIME
That is. even if one of the above-mentioned people shows genius and manages to hold an election, this election will have to wait for the next election.
Of course, all this can be changed, and the election can be made possible, but….. we want the NB legislator to do this.
Yes, yes, this same legislator, who will have to adopt a budget /if he finds it necessary/ and who uses every opportunity for shouting and indecent behavior from the parliamentary rostrum. And whose professional qualifications are, to put it mildly, not impeccable.
The same legislator, who has made 186 amendments to laws adopted in the last 5 years, with some of the amendments being 6-7 to one law. The same legislator, who…etc. etc.
So, that's why it seems to me that talking about changing the Supreme Judicial Council this year is rather naive
optimism rather than magical realism.
But it is realism, magical realism, because sometimes things happen.