As members of the Supreme Judicial Council say that they must fulfill their constitutional obligations by electing a new chief prosecutor and president of the Supreme Administrative Court (VAS), why are they bypassing their constitutional obligations to ensure that the SJC's mandate is not expired, but that there are new people in the council. Both are their constitutional obligations… This is what he announced to Lili Marinkova in the "FACTS" studio. and the show “Conversation“ Prof. Hristo Hristev, lecturer in law.
Otherwise, if we look at the changes in the Constitution and the amendments that were made, the Constitutional Court did not cancel the changes in the transitional provisions - they were not declared unconstitutional, so according to them, this SJC can choose a new chief prosecutor and a new chairman of the SAC. The effect of this provision cannot be circumvented”, added the guest.
“Next, there are arguments related to the fact that, at the moment, the SJC is not in its full composition. The question is also raised - if this composition of the SJC, whose mandate has expired, decides on an election, whether the balance in the composition between the various quotas is not disturbed. Then the idea to have a certain ratio of forces in the SJC – quota of the president, quota of the National Assembly and elected by the SJC, why is it? Apart from everything else in legal terms, another question can be asked. I will go back to the beginning and the declaration accepted by the SJC that it is their duty to elect a new chief prosecutor and a new president of the SAC. Why does the SJC carelessly keep silent that they also have a constitutional obligation, after their mandate has expired, to take the necessary actions to form a new composition of the SJC. No one is talking about this. Obviously, there are some other reasons…“, the lawyer added.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.