[ad_1]
© Julia Lazarova
Any statement of a critical position, whether from the media, judges or journalists, according to the SJC, clearly falls into the category of “pressure on the judiciary.”
The analysis was republished by Deutsche Welle. The reason is that two days ago the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (SJC) created a public record of attacks on the independence of the judiciary. It contains 36 statements, opinions, letters and decisions from the beginning of 2018 to now, including the Council’s positions on the European Commission’s report on Bulgaria’s progress on the cooperation and verification mechanism.
The recently created “Public Registry of Cases of Violation of the Independence of the Judicial Power”, which can be found on the website of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (SJC), may surprise only those who are not familiar with the prevailing mentality in high spheres of the judiciary.
In most of the registry documents, for example, the authors of journalistic material in “Freedom Europe”, “Dnevnik” and “Sega” are recognized as “subjects of usurpation”. In them, it should be noted, attention is paid to signs of political dependence in the judiciary. These are articles that dare to ask, for example, when the prosecution will seriously address the disturbing recordings that expired in the summer of 2020, whose protagonist appears to be Prime Minister Borissov.
Are these the invasions?
The SJC considers the usurpation of the independence of the judiciary and the criticisms expressed by judge Lozan Panov, who had dared to say that in our country Themis has become a servant of certain political figures, that the principle of the rule of law. The positions of President Radev, as well as the bar associations, which demanded the resignation of Chief Prosecutor Geshev, are also clearly being imposed.
Hristo Ivanov, the leader of “Yes, Bulgaria”, was also placed “on the bench” by the SJC. But what opportunities does an opposition politician have to “exercise systematic and deliberate political pressure on the independence of the prosecution”? This is not clear. If we look for the true drivers of the processes in the judiciary, is it not better to look at those who run the state and the judiciary, rather than the opposition political formations?
What interests, for example, does Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev defend? What about the performance of the prosecution in the presidential institution in the summer of 2020, which scandalized the majority of Bulgarian citizens?
The SJC even puts in the register in question even the “not so positive” report of the European Commission on the progress of Bulgaria in the framework of the cooperation and verification mechanism, as well as the sanction by the United States of judge Andon Mitalov ( who allowed the investigated leader of ND “Russophiles” Nikolay Malinov to go to Russia, and for whom, according to Secretary of State Pompeo, there is evidence of corrupt behavior).
Claims of infallibility?
From everything that has been said so far, it is clear that the new registration is an unintentional but quite successful self-diagnosis of most of the SJC members. Because it reveals his misunderstanding of the “independence of the judiciary.” Any statement of a critical position, whether from the media, judges or journalists, according to the SJC, clearly falls into the category of “pressure on the judiciary.”
For years, there has been evidence from the Bulgarian judiciary, which speaks clearly of corrupt practices, of compliance with political orders. But according to the SJC, if the media, the EU institutions or the US State Department open a word about these “skeletons in the closet”, they, as you see, “interfere.” Does the principle of an independent judiciary mean that it is infallible?
However, I have a feeling that the “best” is yet to come. According to the plan announced by the “Borisov 3” cabinet, the feeling of independence of the judiciary will be measured, as well as the degree of confidence of citizens in the judiciary. Many studies of this type already exist and the results are not flattering for the judiciary.
How will the independence of the judiciary be evaluated?
It is unclear why further analysis is needed, unless the goal is to develop the genre of “brutal self-promotion.” We saw an example in a recently published survey, according to which 99% of citizens are satisfied with the services of the Ministry of the Interior.
The trick: the study was carried out by the Ministry of the Interior itself.
Would we be wrong in assuming that the exemplary sociology by which the judiciary will be evaluated will likely “establish” that Themis employees in our country are the same excellent and admirable students?
The column “Analysis” presents different points of view, the opinions expressed do not necessarily coincide with the editorial position of “Dnevnik”.
