/ world today news/ “The proposed project for changes to the Law on the Judiciary does not meet public expectations for reforming the judiciary. Reform is undoubtedly necessary, especially in the field of criminal justice, and it is important to fix the correct focus of this reform”.
This is stated in the opinion of the Association of Prosecutors on the occasion of the proposals for changes in the Criminal Code announced by the Minister of Justice Hristo Ivanov at the end of May.
The opinion reflects the summarized result of the submitted written opinions, as well as the expressed positions of the members of the APB during the National Conference “Prosecutors and the Reform of the Judiciary”.
The prosecutors declare the need first of all to make changes in the procedural legislation and in particular the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the Criminal Code, the laws on the Ministry of Internal Affairs, DANS and customs and DOPC and only lastly to undertake reforming of the structural units of the judiciary and the manner of their management. According to the state prosecutors, through the changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proof of crimes will be simplified and at the same time, the legal interests of the parties in the cases will be guaranteed.
“The proposed new structure of the governing body, the Supreme Judicial Council, will not solve the most significant problems that are directly felt by the public (the slow and sluggish justice, the unnecessary formalities of proving crimes, the engagement of the prosecutor’s office in unusual activities, etc.). the composition of the SJC split into two panels, will it increase the detection of crimes; will it deform the slow and lengthy pre-trial and judicial procedure; will it guarantee fair compensation to the victims The other general ideas contained in the draft law will not contribute to overcoming the above-mentioned problems: the return of the non-permanent system of the magistrates’ office; the introduction of a wide range of circumstances (even personal ones). must declare, including for which to be checked; the possibility for the Minister of Justice to propose heads of the various prosecutor’s offices, etc., emphasize the APB.
The prosecutors also list 11 moments that they define as “disturbing” in the texts of the proposals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications:
It is not clear what the proposed change to the principle of distribution of cases in the prosecution requires. There is no logic in the prosecutor’s office, which is an organ of the judicial power as much as the court, for the allocation of cases to be carried out by a different mechanism.
Discriminatory approach in the ways of referral to the Constitutional Court by the court and the prosecutor’s office. The proposed change contains a message that prosecutors are lawyers with a lower level of knowledge and do not deserve to be given an opportunity similar to that of judges, to be able to appeal to the Supreme Court when they find a law unconstitutional.
The division of the SJC into two collegiums is a model that can only be introduced by the Grand National Assembly. The authors of the project themselves are also aware that their proposal is unconstitutional if it is not adopted with an amendment to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The distribution of the political quota between the two collegiums is an absolute injustice – in the judge’s it is five members, and in the prosecutor’s it is six members. This affects the sovereignty of the judiciary and is a clear demonstration of future ambitions to isolate the prosecution institution from the judicial system.
The proposal to return the model with a non-permanently operating SCC is a change that is retrograde rather than innovative. This model was denied 8 years ago, and it harms the independence of magistrates and their ability to make decisions based on their inner conviction.
The proposal to introduce auxiliary commissions to the two colleges of the SJC is in practice a seizure of the powers of its members. It also risks creating confusion in the organization of the work of the individual prosecutor’s offices and courts from which the members of the commissions will be sent. There is also a real danger of dependence of the members of these commissions.
Discriminatory approach to nomination of Chief Judicial Inspector. This is contained in the proposal to be able to elect a magistrate with a minimum of 10 years of work experience as a judge, but not as a prosecutor. The proposal to close the Supreme Administrative Prosecutor’s Office is a step towards violating the Constitution.
An additional and in-depth analysis of the proposal to drop preliminary checks from the prosecutor’s competence is necessary. Limiting the secondment to a period of six months and including an additional procedure for obtaining an opinion from the SJC will make this institute ineffective. The change does not take into account what is the real purpose of the secondment – to ensure, and in some cases – even in an emergency, sending a magistrate to a specific position due to official necessity.
The proposal to allow the Minister of Justice to propose the appointment of heads of prosecution is completely unconstitutional.
The whole regime of declaring facts about the property status of magistrates and subjecting them to checks hides a presumption of corrupt behavior. Extremes are reached with regard to the facts subject to declaration, which violates the right to privacy. Prerequisites are also being created for checks based on anonymous reports.
In conclusion, the Association of Prosecutors states that the opinion is an expression of conviction that through a constructive dialogue and with common efforts, the right path and the right decisions will be found in order to achieve an optimal result, which would be a successful step forward in the development of judicial reform .
#Prosecutors #Hristo #Ivanovs #proposals #judicial #law #wrong #focus
