The immunity of Bulgarian deputies and candidate deputies is much wider than that of their colleagues in Europe and around the world and unjustifiably guarantees them unnecessary impunity. Lawyers are warning about this problem in front of “24 hours – 168 stories” on the eve of the next early elections in our country.
“Without being a specialist in constitutional law, I believe that the immunity of MPs should be for their speeches from the parliamentary rostrum and for their votes in parliament and in committees – commented Ivaylo Krajchev, a law professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, in this regard – Beyond that, they should be granted immunity only to the extent necessary
so that they don’t get in the way
perform their functions To give them more immunity than this is to provide them with privileges that other citizens do not have, and thus, in a sense, to place them above the law. I don’t see why, for example, an MP cannot be prosecuted for hooliganism committed on the sidelines of Parliament.”
In support of his claim, he also cited numerous texts from the Canadian legislation, which show that unlike our people’s elected officials and candidates for such, the deputies in the second largest country in the world enjoy special protection only for their direct activity in the parliament.
At first glance, their protection from prosecution is regulated in a similar way in our Constitution, where in Art. 69 states: “People’s representatives are not criminally responsible for the opinions they express and for their votes in the National Assembly.” But the interpretations of Art. 70 – the next provision of the supreme law devoted to the problem, it seems
introduce a lot
more privileged status, which gives rise to disputes. It states that
“People’s representatives cannot be detained and no criminal prosecution can be instituted against them except for crimes of a general nature, and with the permission of the National Assembly, and when it is not in session – of the Speaker of the National Assembly.” An exception is provided only in the case of a proven serious crime, when authorization for detention is not requested, but in such a case the National Assembly is immediately notified, and if it is not in session – the Speaker of the National Assembly.
What’s more – in practice, Bulgarian MPs also enjoy an additional second immunity during an election campaign, because in this period, apart from the National Assembly, for the detention of the candidate, caught in a serious crime, if he is a member of the parliament and at the moment, the consent the Central Election Commission (CEC) must also give it. The same applies to candidates for elected representatives who are not part of the current parliament. On top of that, in this situation it is not at all clear what happens if the two institutions come up with opposite decisions.
Several case studies of recent days, as well as dozens of scandals in the past, show that the issue of parliamentary immunity is very timely and relevant.
The latest case is the removal of the immunity of Ceyhan Ibryamov. The decision was supported by 13 of the members of the CEC, as well as by the 50th National Assembly. A few weeks ago, news broke that Rumen Gaitanski, the oligarch accused of illegally draining nearly 150 million from the Bulgarian Development Bank, will participate in the elections on October 27 as a candidate in the Sliven electoral district in search of immunity from prosecution. Gaitanski later denied the claim himself and tried to get out of custody because of “deteriorating health”, but this option renewed the debate about the possibility of people with criminal records abusing the broad protection given to candidates for deputies in our country. Even more so
such precedents do not
are also absent in the past
Since 1990, more than 30 people’s representatives and candidate deputies have been asked to remove their immunity, but those for whom it was voted for are counted on the fingers. So it is not surprising that only three of them have been in prison – a very small number indeed for a country that has long claimed to have declared war on corruption at the highest levels of power.
The special status is also very tempting for iconic figures from the underworld. So over the years since
the receipt scheme
on protection
Tsvetelin Kanchev, Plamen Galev and Angel Hristov (nicknamed “Brothers Galevi”), Nikolay Banev, as well as Zlatomir Ivanov – Zlatko Baretata tried to take advantage of parliamentary and candidate parliamentary immunity.
And in 2009, the district election commission in Varna caused a scandal by deciding to allow the list of the “Union of Bulgarian Patriots” into the elections, which contained the names of the arrested municipal councilors Veselin and Hristo Danovi.
In their capacity as people’s representatives over the years, charges have been brought against Pavel Chernev, Borislav Noev, Nikola Prodanov, Dimitar Gorov, Dimitar Avramov and Desislav Chukolov.
A record of sorts
in this regard
puts Volen Siderov. After he became a member of parliament in 2005, as many as four requests were submitted by the chief prosecutor to remove his parliamentary immunity.
In 2009, on the grounds that he ran for MEP on the list of his party BSD-Bulgarian Social Democracy, the court also dismissed the case against the former director of “Kremikovtsi” and FC “CSKA” Alexander Tomov.
The list is long and this is no accident at all. A check of “24 hours – 168 stories” in the legislation of other countries shows serious differences in the regime of protection of people’s representatives. It is true that almost all countries in the world have provided for some special status for MPs, but according to the respective legal traditions their privileges vary widely. The top ten countries with the strongest parliamentary immunity are countries located mainly in Africa and Asia. For example, MPs in Guinea enjoy absolute immunity. The country has been ruled by military regimes with a socialist bent for several decades, and has recently suffered severely from the Ebola virus.
It is not known whether these troubles influenced the immunity decision, but by law Guinean parliamentarians
are protected
from all persecution,
whether criminal, civil or disciplinary matters. Moreover, there is no procedure at all for these benefits to be withdrawn.
But for us, as members of the EU, it is more important to comply with Community law. In this regard, in the European Parliament, requests for the removal of immunity are considered by a special committee that has the right to decide these issues, but in principle, in the individual member states, the protection, as far as it exists, is functional and extends exclusively to ensuring the possibility for the deputies to exercise their duties and not provide them with additional privileges.
For example in Belgium
not required at all
the consent of the Parliament,
for a case to be filed against its member who broke the law. The practice is similar in the Netherlands, where since 1848 the approval of their national assembly is not required in order for a sitting deputy to be brought under criminal responsibility when he does not fulfill the duties of his mandate. In Germany, representatives are generally exempt from criminal liability only for their speeches in the Bundestag, and an arrest warrant is required for a crime, but only if they are not detained during the commission of the crime or the day after. In France and Spain, the fundamental laws state that deputies cannot be arrested only while performing their direct duties, but are absolutely criminally responsible, like all other citizens, when they do not enter into this hypothesis.
The case of Slovenia is interesting, where no immunity applies when charged with a crime,
requiring judgment
over 6 months imprisonment
In Denmark, MPs enjoy protection only when they are not caught at the scene of a crime in violation of the law or it is related to their speeches in parliament. It may sound surprising to some, but in the remaining Scandinavian countries – Sweden, Norway and Finland – MPs do not have any protection against criminal prosecution at all. Even in neighboring Greece, which is hailed as the cradle of democracy, immunity protects elected officials
only in speeches
from the stand
or when performing their direct duties.
Thus, it turns out that compared to all countries in Europe, deservedly or not, in Bulgaria the people’s representatives are placed almost on a “pedestal”, and this despite the fact that a study by “Alpha Research” some time ago showed that as many as 92% of Bulgarian citizens are in favor of removing this immunity. And another sociological survey from the summer of this year showed that trust in the National Assembly is only 9 percent, and distrust – almost 70 percent.
Privileges for Bulgarian MPs are also irritating against the background of the generally accepted opinion that we are the poorest and most corrupt country in the European Union.