The moral qualities of the people in the highest positions in the judicial system are no less important than the constitutional changes themselves. Prof. Ekaterina Mihailova, professor of constitutional law at the NBU, developed this thesis in the program “Week 150” of BNR. She commented on the general bill for changes to the constitution, submitted to the National Assembly’s registry by GERB-SDS, PP-DB and DPS on Friday.
“The constitution provides the framework, but then there must be legal changes. The people who will implement the laws are also extremely important and whether they are in place and whether they meet the qualities laid down both in the constitution and in the laws.” said Mihailova.
“The texts that are also proposed in the draft – that the persons who will be in the SJC, now also the Prosecutor’s Council, meet the conditions not only to be lawyers, but also to have high moral qualities. This is a step in the right direction. It depends what will eventually come out as a product of the National Assembly – but if it is only within the framework of the constitutional change, and not the persons who will carry out the relevant activity, we will still have great disappointments”. the professor thinks.
According to her, the members of the SJC should not be part of the system itself, but should be other lawyers – for example, socially significant figures with a good reputation. “So far we’ve seen another – talk,” reminded Mihailova. According to her, even at the entrance to the judicial system, it matters who the candidate is who takes the relevant exams.
Regarding the division of the SJC into two, Mihailova explained that this proposal is for greater commitment on the part of the state, and not only in the bodies of the judiciary. According to her, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) reacted politically to what was happening in the judiciary, referring to the case of Ivan Geshev.
“It will be a difficult reform”, predicted Prof. Mihailova.
“Most likely we will have a change in the Constitution on the so-called slow track for the first time. That is the possible majority on the first reading. Usually, when changes are made to the constitution, they are made by more political forces that guarantee that there will be majority for the relevant changes. It’s like we won’t have the high majority for the fast changes, but it will go the slow way.” Mihailova thinks.
Regarding the limitation of the powers of the chief prosecutor, Prof. Mihailova warned that extremes are always dangerous. Balanced solutions should be sought, she believes. “There is a risk of going from one extreme to the other – from a very strong figure to turning him into a person on whom absolutely nothing depends – this should not happen.” commented Mihailova.
The text that was proposed to us does not limit the powers of an interim government, commented the lawyer and added that it changes which persons can be in such a government. The solution is to remain this legal figure. We are offered a model that exists in some countries – for example in Greece, pointed out Prof. Ekaterina Mihailova.
The lawyer also commented on the case with the disfigured 18-year-old girl by her ex-boyfriend.
“The penal code is quite outdated, there have been many attempts to completely change it,” she commented on the case in Stara Zagora.
“We mainly work with physical traumas, and in addition to them there are also mental traumas. When there is one expertise and there is doubt about it, the field of this expertise can be expanded and an additional one can be requested. The judiciary itself has foreseen that we have an instance control. And here the prosecution must be in its place. Now it is being activated. But if there was no public response in those days, the case would probably have sunk and no one would have been activated. That is why judicial reform is needed. It starts from the top, from the norms in the constitution.” Mihailova summarized.
