Judicial Reform in Bulgaria: What are the Proposals of the Union of Jurists?

The time for judicial reform, discussed for years, is once again on the agenda. The chairman of the Union of Jurists in Bulgaria (UJB), Vladislav Slavov, made it clear that deep changes in this key area are more than necessary, but warned of the risk of hasty decisions. Speaking to BTA during a seminar in Devin, he emphasized the need for a careful approach that takes into account both the public interest and professional standards.

To support his thesis, Slavov cited the last amendment to the Constitution as an example. According to him, this change, prepared by anonymous authors, was assessed as almost entirely unconstitutional. This is just one of the cases, according to him, that demonstrate the lack of effectiveness of the current reforms. The results, as the chairman of the UJB emphasized, do not satisfy either the lawyers, the citizens, or the European partners.

In addition, Slavov pointed out the deteriorated state of the judicial system, which is aggravated by the non-functioning of key bodies. The Inspectorate has been without a mandate for five years, and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) - for three years. "They are unable to carry out their functions normally, because the members of these bodies have expired mandates, and secondly - they cannot elect incumbents to very important positions - chief prosecutor, chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court", he emphasized.

For many years there has been talk of judicial reform, but it is still not a fact. Slavov recalled that our country has been in reform for 35 years. He noted that the Constitution itself, adopted in 1991 by the Grand National Assembly, provides for judicial reform. The initially envisaged changes, including the creation of the SJC, the restoration of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), as well as the creation of appellate structures, were introduced with some delay, due to pressure from the judiciary itself.

Slavov also reviewed various strategies for judicial reform, starting from 2001 with documents known as the Judicial Reform Strategy. "They started from 2001, there was a Strategy adopted by the government of Saxe-Coburg, then it was updated. In 2009 - a new Strategy, in 2014 - an updated Strategy and somewhere around 2020 we reported the implementation of these strategies and the result is nothing", he is categorical.

According to Vladislav Slavov, a key factor in solving the problem is the existence of a working National Assembly. He emphasized the need to reach an agreement in parliament, especially on issues such as the election of members of the SJC and the Inspectorate. "This National Assembly, having created, for example, a requirement for a 2/3 majority in the election of the SJC and the Inspectorate, in the end, must reach an agreement in order to elect the parliamentary quota of the SJC, on the one hand, and to elect the Inspectorate, on the other hand, because it is elected entirely by the parliament. I have never liked this, I have not shared it and it is absurd to me", he said.

In order to find a way forward, the UJB offers an approach reminiscent of the one applied in the mid-90s of the last century. Then, three expert teams, led by prominent professors in the field of law, discussed and prepared solutions for the development of labor, administrative and commercial law. It is from then that the Administrative Procedure Code dates.

"This example gives us reason to approach in the same way at the moment, because I believe that we need a very serious reform. And the UJB once again, but this time much more clearly and categorically, made this appeal", Slavov pointed out. The UJB proposes to form three teams of leading lawyers to develop specific ideas. The primary task is to review the structure and functioning of the SJC, including issues such as its permanent operation, the presence of colleges and the procedures for electing members. The second focus is on reducing the parliamentary quota in the council, which, according to Slavov, is excessive and gives the possibility of politicization. The third team will focus on the problems of the courts, including a review of the judicial map.

According to the chairman of the UJB, it is necessary to review the number of courts in the country, taking into account the decrease in the population, the number of cases and the changes in the movement of the population. "The separate question is that some changes can be made, which I have seen in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries and which have proved to be very successful. First, to remove one of the four levels of courts. We have a district, regional, appellate and supreme. Our proposal, which is close to a variant of four, is to merge district and regional courts and to create from 50 to 70 single first instance courts within the country, which will decide as a first instance all cases and in all cases will be more professionally and more objectively dispensing justice, because there will be a larger number of judges, which implies specialization. Instead of five, we will make nine appellate courts and the cases will stop here", Slavov explained.

The UJB also proposes the abolition of the three-instance proceedings, with cases reaching the Supreme Court only by exception. This would make it possible to relieve the Supreme Court, which is currently overloaded. Reducing its staff would also help to overcome the contradictory practice.

Regarding the legitimacy of the Chief Prosecutor Borislav Sarafov, as well as the position of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Slavov pointed out that the issue is clear. He emphasized that his personal position coincides with that of the Supreme Court of Cassation and called on all interested parties to comply with it. "If he has said something, we must comply with it. Neither the prosecution college nor the prosecutors can stand against what the Supreme Court has said. This is the leading one", Slavov concluded.