2024-07-29 08:43:32
The Constitutional Court had to go further, applying a high, general standard to evaluate these changes. This was said by Prof. Yanaki Stoilov, a constitutional judge, on the occasion of the decision of the Constitutional Court to cancel the judicial reform, but to leave the curtailed rights of the president in the appointment of an official cabinet, the program “The Day Begins” on BNT.
“Constitutional control has a long history in Europe – about a century, in our history – shorter. However, a trend can be traced that if in the first decades it was primarily a formal control, whether a body that does not embody the primary constituent power is complied with the order to change the Constitution and whether it has not exceeded its own competence. In recent decades, we find that the content of the Constitution is increasingly being penetrated. What bears different names in the practice of different jurisdictions – it can be called the material or normative core of the Constitution. The Bulgarian Constitutional Court has also outlined such a line. The current changes were the most numerous because they were contested in their entirety and had to be reviewed by the Constitutional Court , that if both parties are not satisfied with a decision, then it has found the necessary balance, but I would not apply this qualification to the current overall result. In my opinion, the Constitutional Court should have gone further, applying a high, general standard to evaluate these changes,” emphasized Stoilov.
“To note the great work that was done by the court and especially by the three rapporteurs – judges Pavlina Panova, Mariana Karagyozova and Sonia Yankulova, of course many others also participated in shaping basic elements of the decision in its redaction. Our aspiration, at least in these , who supported the position of unconstitutionality and the texts that did not receive the necessary majority, I think it is the same. That is, a common standard and the relevant criteria are applied to it, so everyone must make their own judgment,” noted the professor.
According to him, the decision of the Constitutional Court was not delayed, as the case has been ongoing for about half a year.
“I want to point out that the most changes were in the chapter on the judiciary. Even the change in the Constitution itself began with the motive that the judiciary should be reformed. Along with this, other additional topics were also asked. However, it turned out that this because of which the change was initiated remained at a minimum and the other issues. ultimately share the same fate.”