We need a completely new draft of the Law on the Judiciary, and that after the decision of the Constitutional Court

The head of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, Iliana Kirilova, sent a summary opinion on the draft Law on the Judiciary on behalf of the prosecutors in the SGP. The final conclusion from it is that it is necessary to build a completely new project and that after the ruling of the Constitutional Court, reported the SGP.

The proposed project was prepared before the decision of the Constitutional Court on the pending cases concerning the structural changes in the judiciary and in this sense it was rushed, the prosecutor’s office announced.

The analysis of the texts reveals a number of provisions that are in conflict with the Constitution. The project is not able to fulfill the goals set in the reasons for it – some of which are unclear, and it does not contain a regulation that could provide conditions for improving the work of the judiciary, says the position sent by Kirilova.

The opinion contests the decisions that require mandatory initiation of pre-trial proceedings in cases of annulment of a decree refusing to initiate pre-trial proceedings, as well as in cases where the author of the report is a certain person or state body.

The SGP calls to take into account the fact that for the past year 2023, only 0.087% of the total number of rulings on refusal to initiate pre-trial proceedings were canceled by the Sofia City Court. This shows that the prosecutors carry out quality checks and correctly issue rulings on the refusal to initiate pre-trial proceedings precisely in these factually and legally complex cases.

The essential importance of the provisions concerning the composition of the High Prosecutorial Council (HCC) and its functions is noted. According to the SGP, the division between judges on the one hand and prosecutors and investigators on the other is unfounded. The same applies to limiting the functions of the chief prosecutor in such a way that he is almost deprived of the opportunity to lead the prosecution, but at the same time seeking accountability from him, bordering on responsibility, etc.

It is objected to the provisions that limit the possibility of the professional quota of prosecutors and investigators to participate in the VPS at the expense of the party usually opposed to the prosecution in the process – the legal profession, which does not bear the obligation to reveal the objective truth. Serious criticism has been leveled at the prioritization of certain non-governmental organizations over others, on the basis of stereotyped experience, determined according to vague criteria, as a prerequisite to being able to make proposals for candidates in both councils.