/ world today news/ The Institute for Modern Politics expresses a sharp protest against the violation of the separation of powers and the principle of political neutrality of judicial magistrates by the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), Mr. Lozan Panov.
1. His behavior enters in stark contrast to the status of an independent magistrate and administrative head in the judiciary, because:
– Taking institutional action, such as the announcement of a series of official meetings with senior government bodies and parliamentary parties that are being insisted upon for convening a Great National Assembly (Supreme Court) with the aim of changes in the constitutional structure of Bulgaria, interference by a representative of the judicial power in the competence of the legislative power is inadmissible. Such actions are not a manifestation of the individual freedom of expression that judicial magistrates undoubtedly have. The engagement of the institution of the Supreme Judicial Court through its president, who precisely in this capacity holds meetings with institutions and parties, and again in this capacity calls for political consultations, constitutes an abuse of the status of a high judicial magistrate and of the institution of the Supreme Court.
– It should be recalled that in a number of EU countries and In the USA, the political neutrality of judicial magistrates also includes an obligation not to participate in advocacy and lobbying on legislative matters.
– The consultations conducted by Mr. Panov with the aim of convening the Supreme Court for significant changes in the constitutional structure of Bulgaria are also open entry of a judge into the realm of politics. This is a violation of item 9.2. from the Code of Ethical Behavior of Bulgarian Magistrates (Adopted by Decision of the SJC under Protocol No. 21 of 20.05.2009, amended by Decision of the SJC under Protocol No. 2 of 18.01.2011) – “The magistrate does not participate in any way in party-political activity and does not interfere in political or business circles of influence”.
2. With regard to the request of the President of the Supreme Court to convene the Supreme Court and remove the prosecutor’s office from the independent judiciary.
– Convening the Supreme Court cannot be an act dictated by random thoughts that do not have and never had serious public support. Nor to be a tool for the realization of party, corporate and private interests. The issues on which the Supreme Court could be convened should have proven public necessity, broad public support and political agreement. Their formation is the work of the legitimate participants in the political process, not judges, prosecutors and investigators.
– The place of the prosecutor’s office within the independent judiciary was discussed in depth during the adoption of the Constitution. The bad traditions of using the prosecutor’s office for repressive and political purposes, which are characteristic of the various political regimes of the Third Bulgarian State, was the consensus argument for the inclusion of the prosecutor’s office in the independent judiciary in the spirit of the good practices of a number of developed democracies – France, Italy, Spain, etc. The transfer of the prosecutor’s office to the executive branch or its separation into an independent institution was launched during the administration of Ivan Kostov (1997-2001) and is championed by political figures originating from these party circles, whose electoral support has been progressively declining over the past 20 years. Such a thesis has never met with serious expert, public and political support.
– We have always defended the principled position that the encroachment on the independence of the prosecutor’s office by removing it from the judicial power in Bulgarian conditions hides significantly more serious risks of placing the prosecutor’s activity under party and even corporate control than the current status of independent judicial magistrates and the foreseen mechanisms for accountability and control, which relate both to the court and to the prosecutor’s office.
Such ideas can be a legitimate subject of political and expert discussion, but not a reason for the intervention of representatives of the judiciary in the political process, demands for elections and changes in the form of government. Because when a judge, instead of applying the law and administering justice, seeks to legislate and cause political change, democracy and the separation of powers are in danger.
June 8, 2017 FOR THE LEGAL TEAM OF
INSTITUTE FOR MODERN POLITICS:
Dr. BORISLAV CEKOV
#judge #apply #law #legislate #erodes #democracy
