2024-07-27 04:24:23
- The attorney general’s investigation mechanism is “vague to the point of impracticability” but could be legislated
- Parliament remains permanently active, but will not elect the regulators with a 2/3 majority
- The text that science, education and culture are a national value turned out to be unconstitutional
The judicial reform, in the name of which the 6th amendment to the basic law of the country was made, was cut down by the Constitutional Court. However, the texts about the acting prime minister and the dual citizenship of the deputies, which were added during the overhaul of the constitution, survived. For now.
As “24 Chasa” reported a few days ago, the judges are divided 6 to 6 regarding the so-called by President Rumen Radev’s home book, from which he can choose an acting prime minister. That no decision was reached due to the balance of votes means that
The SC can be referred again on this issue (For the reasons of the two groups of judges, see below.)
The latest, but also the most large-scale changes in the constitution were voted in December by the 49th National Assembly by GERB-SDS, PP-DB and DPS. Hristo Ivanov, Nadezhda Yordanova (see their comments below) and Atanas Slavov from “Yes, Bulgaria”.
Immediately after the promulgation of the amendments, they were attacked in their entirety by the opposition – “Vazrazhdane”, as well as by President Radev, but without those regarding the judicial system.
It is to the “judicial” texts that the constitutional judges are most critical in their reasons, which are 200 pages long. This is the 5th change in the “Judiciary” chapter in 33 years.
The superimposition of changes, including the cancellation of those accepted during previous changes, shows
absence of
clear vision influence of heterogeneous factors and lack of political and public consensus, say the judges. And they add that numerous amendments do not lead to the desired result – fairness and increasing the efficiency of the system.
Of the 12 judges, the changes in the judiciary were expectedly supported by Desislava Atanasova, who is a co-sponsor and voted for them as a deputy, Borislav Belazelkov and Konstantin Penchev. Before becoming a constitutional judge, he was the head of the Supreme Court and the ombudsman. However, Penchev was against the curtailed powers of the chief prosecutor regarding his possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The remaining 9 justices disagreed with most of the amendments. But they keep the new text that the structure of the prosecution follows that of the courts dealing with criminal cases – i.e.
The Supreme Administrative Prosecutor’s Office is finally in the past
The limitation of prosecutorial powers outside the criminal process also remains.
However, the judges point out that the mechanism for investigating the chief prosecutor (it is in the NPC, but was also included in the constitution) is “vague to the point of inapplicability”.
They criticize the authors of the amendment that by inserting it into the basic law, create a body in the prosecutor’s office system, which is granted such narrowed methods and powers as to limit its ability to perform the main task of monitoring compliance with the law.
Therefore, when the National Assembly acts as a legislator, it cannot go beyond the limits laid down in the basic law regarding the regulation of the task of the prosecutorial authorities and the means of its implementation. they say.
However, the SC notes that the mechanism for the investigation of the Prosecutor General can be regulated by law. That is precisely why, as soon as they announced their decision on the constitution,
rejected the request of former chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev
the mechanism to be declared unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court also canceled the text that the management of some regulatory bodies is elected by a qualified majority, if this is stated in the law. The amendment, which is absolutely new to our fundamental law,
bwas introduced because of the “Anti-corruption” commission
The law on the KPK stated that its three heads are elected by 2/3 of the votes of the deputies.
Unexpectedly, the court canceled the text that seemed to be the most unproblematic – that “science, education and culture are national values”.
In their reasons, the magistrates reflect in detail on concepts such as “national culture”, “identity”, “globalization”. And they conclude that the new text violates a basic constitutional value – the unity of the nation, which is an element of the foundation of the state as it was built with the 1991 constitution.
The Supreme Judicial Council in the old composition and according to the old rules will look for the new prosecutor No. 1 and the head of the Supreme Court
The texts related to the judicial, prosecutorial collegium, and plenary session of the SJC, which with the changes were rechristened the judicial council, prosecutorial council, and general assembly, had the most zealous defenders and the fiercest critics in the 6th amendment.
The previous amendment to the Basic Law from 2015 was also related to this part – the cause of Hristo Ivanov, at that time Minister of Justice. Even then, lawyers warned that with the creation of two panels of the SJC, the maximum number of changes that could be made by the Ordinary People’s Assembly had been reached. From then on, everything is within the competence of the Grand National Assembly. However, the deputies did not listen to them and these new texts in the constitution fell as expected.
These included the splitting of the SJC into two councils with a mandate of 4 rather than 5 years, and a change in quotas. In the prosecutor’s office, six people should be elected by the National Assembly, and there should be no active prosecutors and investigators among them. In the judicial council, eight had to be appointed by the judges, and five by the parliament. As the chief prosecutor, he had to be elected only by the prosecutor’s council, and with a mandate of 5 years, not 7 as now.
With the pronouncement of the SC, the old SJC returned with 25 members, two collegiums and a plenum with the old powers in full, including the election of the chiefs of the supreme courts and the chief prosecutor.
Therefore, one of the first tasks of the SJC must now be to open a procedure for the election of a new president of the Supreme Administrative Court, since the mandate of Georgi Cholakov expires at the end of 2024. There is also no obstacle for the SJC to resume the suspended election procedure of new accuser No. 1, as Borislav Sarafov is the i.f.
The SC’s decision is political and will have severe political consequences, warned Hristo Ivanov before “24 Chasa”. It threatens our efforts for full integration in the EU and pushes the political system towards a deepening of the crisis and a Grand National Assembly. A few days ago, the EC rated the changes in our constitution as good.
The Constitutional Court today blocked the possibility of a reform of the judiciary that would introduce the highest possible guarantees for an independent court, an accountable prosecutor’s office and limit the power of the chief prosecutor. This decision deepens the crisis in the country caused by the lack of justice, former minister Nadezhda Yordanova also reacted.
The 6:6 parity on the changes for the official cabinet can only be until November and they will fall on re-referral to the SC
The Constitutional Court divided into two for 3 of the changes – for the acting prime minister, the dual citizenship of the deputies and the permanent National Assembly.
Until a few days ago, many of the constitutionalists were of the opinion that exactly these changes should be reflected. In this spirit were also the opinions of the lawyers sent to the court.
The head of the Constitutional Court Pavlina Panova, Mariana Karagyozova-Finkova, Tanya Rajkovska, Atanas Semov, Yanaki Stoilov and Sonya Yankulova were of the opinion that these provisions are unconstitutional.
Their colleagues Konstantin Penchev, Filip Dimitrov, Nadezhda Dzhelepova, Krasimir Vlahov, Borislav Belazelkov and Desislava Atanasova have advocated the opposite position.
This split means that the new rules for appointing a caretaker government will apply, where the president chooses a prime minister from a list of 10 senior government officials. Radev himself called it a home book. In April, the only one from the list who agreed to become acting prime minister was the head of the Audit Chamber, Dimitar Glavchev. The refusal of the other candidates then gave rise to speculations that the Constitutional Court would cancel the text.
The lack of a decision now allows the court to be referred to the same provisions again. And in November, the situation will change, as two appointed to the Central Committee by President Rosen Plevneliev – Mariana Karagyozova-Finkova and Filip Dimitrov, will leave its composition. In their place will enter two named by Radev. And it is not excluded that the balance of forces is already different.
For the time being, there is also the possibility that a Bulgarian citizen who has another citizenship, if he has lived in Bulgaria for the last 18 months, can also be elected as a national representative. According to one group of members of the Central Committee, “the hypothesis of dual citizenship of persons holding high government positions poses a risk for the protection of national unity and security, the interests of the sovereign Bulgarian national state”.
According to the other, in “the modern globalized and wide-open world, the question of the right of Bulgarian citizens who have other citizenships to participate in the management of the state should also be considered in its supranational and modern European context.”