The Judicial Council of the Supreme Judicial Council initiated a procedure for determining the temporary leadership of the Supreme Administrative Court, and will send an official inquiry to the institution regarding its future leadership.
The main reason for this decision is the expiration of the six-month period during which the current acting chairman Georgi Cholakov can hold the position. Legislative changes in the Judicial System Act introduced a limitation on holding temporary positions in supreme courts.
During the meeting, the members of the Judicial Council were divided on how to proceed - whether to directly request the consent of the most senior deputy chairman Marinika Cherneva, or first to refer the matter to the Plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court for a proposal.
The majority of the council preferred the more conservative approach and decided to request an opinion from the Plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court. Supporters of the alternative position pointed out the lack of time and the upcoming summer vacation, but their argument was not accepted.
An interesting point is that during the discussion, the question of how the court will function after Georgi Cholakov's release from the post was not commented on. The decision was made with a 6 to 2 vote in favor of the more formal procedure.
Simultaneously, last week the Prosecutors Council made a different decision regarding the Prosecutor General Borislav Sarafov, deciding that the legal provision does not directly apply to his case.
However, the Judicial Council believes that the restrictive period should be applied to the leadership of the Supreme Administrative Court. An official referral to the Plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court for a proposal regarding the temporary chairman is pending.
The deadline for resolving the issue is July 21, when the six-month mandate of the current acting chairman expires. By that time, the institution must propose its vision for future temporary leadership.
Expectations are that the procedure will be conducted as transparently as possible and in accordance with current legislation, taking into account the interests of the judicial institution.