Bulgaria after PACE: Critical Questions about the Rule of Law

Let's not delude ourselves that the problems have been resolved with the end of the monitoring of Bulgaria by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). This was the main line of a declaration read by Atanas Slavov on behalf of the parliamentary group of "We Continue the Change-Democratic Bulgaria" (WCC-DB). Despite the joyful notes that accompanied PACE's decision to end the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria, the truth is that a number of critical issues are still on the agenda.

Triggering the start of the debates, the deputy chairman of the parliamentary group of "There Is Such a People" (ITN) Stanislav Balabanov read a declaration focused on PACE's decision. He raised the question of why Nadezhda Yordanova (WCC-DB) chose to vote "abstain" in the vote on the resolution, which provoked controversy.

The truth is that after nearly three decades of post-monitoring dialogue, its completion can be seen as a positive sign. The institution announced that Bulgaria will be subject to periodic reviews, which calls into question the ongoing control over the state of justice and the rule of law.

In his speech, Atanas Slavov emphasized that although important, PACE's decision should not lead to complacency. According to him, Bulgaria still faces problems concerning the rule of law and justice, such as the structure of the Supreme Judicial Council, which does not meet European standards. He did not fail to raise the question of the lack of control of the Chief Prosecutor, a position that has remained vacant for two and a half years. Slavov stressed that these problems remain on the agenda and must be addressed. He reminded that the report also included a paragraph on the political arrests that took place in the summer.

Atanas Slavov emphasized that it is important not to be misled by triumph and not to forget that Bulgaria is still not a state of law. He warned against being complacent that the end of the post-monitoring dialogue is enough, and warned of the potential risk of moving to a stricter monitoring mechanism. According to him, there is a lack of initiative on the part of the parliamentary majority to solve these problems, as he called for consideration of specific legislative initiatives by WCC-DB.

According to Slavov, the closure of the specialized justice system, as well as the mechanism for independent investigation of the Chief Prosecutor, are important steps, but we should not forget about the current challenges. He concluded with a call for an honest public discussion and for recognition of the real contribution of each political force.

Stanislav Balabanov from ITN made criticisms from the rostrum, focusing on Nadezhda Yordanova's vote. He accused Yordanova of voting against the Bulgarian national interest and asked about the motives behind this decision.

Stanislav Anastasov ("DPS-New Beginning") responded to Slavov's accusations, stressing that the post-monitoring mechanism could end either with termination or with a transition to full monitoring. He stated that Yordanova supported the second option. "At the moment you have betrayed your own country," he added.

The co-chairman of "Yes, Bulgaria", part of "Democratic Bulgaria" Bozhidar Bozhanov stressed that the bill to close the specialized justice system was introduced by the Council of Ministers, which places the responsibility on Nadezhda Yordanova. He pointed out that the vote "abstain" was not against the resolution, but rather a signal that the problems in the judiciary remain. "Button "for", it would be absurd, on a pig - a bell," he said.

Yordan Tsonev ("DPS-New Beginning") added his comment, stressing that as long as certain circles continue to "rage" and to "write denunciations," there will be no rule of law. He defined Yordanova's vote as part of their common policy.

Kostadin Kostadinov, leader of "Revival", intervened in the debate, stating that the discussions between DPS and WCC-DB do not concern him. According to him, the judicial system is half-taken over by the two political forces.