Prof. Plamen Kirov: In order to convene the Supreme Court, there must be a bill to amend the Constitution – 2024-08-22 23:25:52

/ world today news/ In order to convene a Grand National Assembly /VNS/, there must be a bill to amend the Constitution. The question is: who will draft the bill? Since the initiative belongs to the chairman of the Supreme Court – let him do it.

This was stated by Prof. Plamen Kirov, head of the Department of Constitutional and Legal Sciences at the Faculty of Law of the University of St. Kliment Ohridski”, a constitutional judge with an expired mandate.

Here is the full text of the conversation with him:

Question: Prof. Kirov, how do you view the request of the chairman of the Supreme Court Lozan Panov that the president start consultations and call for the convening of a Grand National Assembly to completely change the judiciary in our country?

PK: How to define it? The short answer is – a display of unhealthy humor. Because Mr. Panov is a senior magistrate who should have read Chapter 9 of the Constitution, where the procedure for its change through the Grand National Assembly and the powers of the Supreme Court itself are regulated. In order to convene, however, there must be a bill to amend the Constitution and it must affect the powers, ie. that reserved sphere where the Supreme Court is competent. Consultations cannot be called. And here the question is: who will develop the bill – the president, the parliamentary groups? Who? As soon as the initiative comes from the chairman of the Supreme Court – let him take the trouble, sit down and write a bill to amend and supplement the Constitution.

Obviously, Panov aspires to a political career. He is involved in political causes – he takes political positions and defends political ones, which is contrary to his place at the moment – so he is one of the three senior magistrates. And by law it is depoliticized and should be politically distanced.

Question: How common are the changes to the Constitution in its part on the judiciary, what was achieved with them and why is the focus of attention always on the prosecutor’s office and the SJC, and not so much on the judiciary?

P.K.: I suspect that the motive here is to transfer the responsibility for the problems in the activities of the judiciary only in relation to the personnel body, or more precisely – to the administrative body, which is the SJC. It neither administers justice nor accuses, but carries out that activity which is, in principle, inherent in the Council of Ministers, but since the judicial power is independent and not political, that is why the Supreme Judicial Council was created. And he should carry out the budgetary, personnel and disciplinary functions, so that the judiciary itself is self-governing and there is no interference from the legislative and executive authorities. This is precisely what guarantees its independence, and that is the point.

While the prosecution only deals with the accusatory function. In fact, it is the court that issues the final act – either in criminal or civil proceedings, and in administrative proceedings it is the Supreme Court. Let it be clearly said – the prosecution is not the master of the process, the court is.

Practically only one amendment so far, and the one that directly affected Bulgaria’s membership in the EU, was not dedicated to the Constitution. All other changes to the Constitution, which are 6 in total, are dedicated to the judiciary. Practically nothing has been achieved with them. This is what appears from the statements of the magistrates themselves…

Question: Should the prosecutor’s office be removed from the judiciary and how will its independence be guaranteed? Won’t the state prosecution thus become easy prey for lobbyists?

PK: When you want to remove the prosecutor’s office from the judicial branch, say whether you want it to fall into the executive branch. Because in many countries, where the prosecutor’s office performs the functions of state prosecution, it is in the executive branch. Is this what we want to implement as a model in Bulgaria?

Question: The prosecutor’s office – outside the judiciary, if this happens, doesn’t it run the risk that the prosecution will turn into a machine for repression?

PK: Naturally, there is such a risk. This is precisely the reason why this model was adopted in 1991, with the new Constitution, that the prosecutor’s office be together with the court, separated in an independent power, so that it cannot be influenced. Because our entire previous history – from the creation of the Third Bulgarian State, was accompanied by the fact that the judicial power was used for political repression against inconvenient political opponents. And in order to close this page, such a judicial power was formed, which would include both the independent court and the independent prosecutor’s office. So that neither the prosecution nor the court can be politically influenced. For this reason, the investigation ended up there, although after that the position evolved and, in fact, the preliminary investigation is currently carried out by the authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including customs, etc.