A proposed change by Parliament to the constitution to set up a new inspectorate of the judiciary has drawn a barrage of criticism from senior justice system figures.

Those opposed to the proposal include the Justice Ministry, the Prosecutor-General’s office, the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) and the Supreme Administrative Court.

The amendment, which would be the fourth in this area for the past 15 years, envisages the setting up of an inspectorate linked to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). At present there is such an inspectorate, but it exists within the Ministry of Justice.

Under the draft amendment, the inspectorate would fall under the Supreme Judicial Council and would check the operation of all judicial authorities without affecting the content of the administration of justice.

The 11 members of the proposed inspectorate would be elected by Parliament for a four-year term of office, and the chairperson of the inspectorate would serve a five-year term. Information about the amendment reached the media on September 18.

Justice Minister Georgi Petkanov was the first senior public office-bearer to speak out against the proposal, labelling it a “mistake”. Petkanov made his comment in the presence of the visiting Baroness Ashton of Upholland, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the UK department for constitutional affairs. Speaking after meeting Ashton, Petkanov told journalists that none of the 25 European Union member states had such a body and there was no need to set up such a one in Bulgaria, either.

“I just want to know what experience the MPs are following in their desire to change the constitution in such a way,” Petkanov said.

“The SJC is a sufficiently authoritative body which can exercise the powers vested in it. Constituting such a body under the SJC would be a mistake.”

Ashton, apparently surprised by Petkanov’s rage against Parliament, said “every country can decide what is best for its judiciary”.

Petkanov was backed by Prosecutor-General Boris Velchev, SCC chairperson Konstantin Penchev and SAC chairperson Ivan Grigorov.

In separate media statements before the regular meeting of the SJC, the three leaders of Bulgaria’s judiciary said that they had not seen the texts of the draft amendment and no one had consulted them about the idea of moving the inspectorate from the Justice Ministry to the SJC.

Velchev and Grigorov objected to the principle that the inspectorate would directly control the activity of the judiciary by controlling the SJC. They also objected to the members of the inspectorate being appointed by Parliament.

Velchev told journalists: “Society must first ask itself whether such a controlling body is needed in the first place, and whether it would do its job the right way - something which I personally have doubts about, but let us first see the text”.

He said that he had not seen the text of the draft amendment and knew only what had been reported in the media.

“I am not sure, however, that such an inspectorate would solve the problems of the Bulgarian judiciary, and what I would like to know is who would control the work of the 11 inspectors,” Velchev said.

Grigorov said that if Parliament approved the amendment, the matter would end up in the Constitutional Court because the amendment contradicted the constitution.

“The establishing of such a control body would be a direct interference in the work of the judiciary because the 11 inspectors would most certainly be political appointments, and together with Parliament’s quota of 15 members in the SJC, this would mean an imbalance of powers,” Grigorov said. He said that he had not seen the text of the amendment.

Penchev was more moderate in his comments. “I think that changes within the judiciary are more than needed, because what we have now is insufficient.”

Penchev even expressed hope that if the inspectorate was moved to the SJC, then “the suspicion that the executive branch of government is interfering in the work of the judiciary might disappear”.

He said that Parliament had to consult the judiciary about such changes because “after all it is us that they are trying to change”.

A lack of harmony between the actions of Parliament and the judiciary is not something new.

A few days previously, the Constitutional Court was overruled an amendment already approved by Parliament which meant that MPs could have saved some time if there had been prior consultation.

On September 12, the Constitutional Court rejected the third amendment to the constitution, which gave the right to Parliament to terminate the terms of the Prosecutor-General and the chairpersons of the SCC and the SAC. The Constitutional Court said that the impeachment procedure adopted by Parliament in March had breached the constitutional principle of separation of powers. However the Constitutional Court supported another amendment that extended the powers of the Justice Minister, allowing more control over judicial system employees by giving the minister the right to promote certain magistrates. The SJC lodged an application against this amendment.

Grigorov hinted that the new amendment could face the same fate.

“It is very likely that we shall again go to the Constitutional Court if the fourth amendment is adopted by Parliament,” he said.

The amendment overruled on September 12 had been criticised by the European Commission (EC) as well.

Both the amendments emanated from the ruling tripartite coalition, made up of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), National Movement Simeon II and Movement for Rights and Freedoms.

Speaking in Parliament on September 12, BSP floor leader Mihail Mikov said that the changes to the constitution were Bulgaria’s answers to the numerous demands coming from European Union representatives that Bulgaria’s judiciary needed to be more accountable for its actions.

Judicial reform was among the six areas listed in the EC’s May monitoring report on Bulgaria’s readiness to join the EU on January 1 2007. The next EC report is to be published on September 26, which is making the ruling majority anxious not to be blamed if the EC registers no progress in this area.

It appears, on the other hand, that Velchev cannot be accused of anxiety.

On September 16, Velchev told private Darik radio that there was a great chance for criminals to avoid imprisonment because the legal prescription, meaning the time in which a case must be finalised, of some cases might have expired. According to Velchev the main reason for this delay was “lazy prosecutors”. It is a simple formula. A case can be postponed and delayed for years and deliberately or not, the actions of magistrates in a way help accused avoid being sentenced.

“Compared to the total number of cases, the proportion of such cases is not large, but the number in itself would be disturbing in any state governed by the rule of law,” Velchev said.

Nothing has been done on some cases ever since they have been instituted.

The Prosecutor-General’s office would make public facts on the checks in late September or early October.

“We must establish who had tolerated this behaviour, what are the structural reasons, and to hold the relevant magistrates responsible and avoid future mistakes,” Velchev said. Responsible or not, Lachezar Marinov, Sofia’s appellate prosecutor, resigned on September 14. Marinov was harshly criticised by Velchev for not acting against defendants with several pending cases which had been dragging on for years. Marinov has been rumoured to be among the prosecutors close to former prosecutor-general Nikola Filchev, who was replaced by Velchev in February. In July another prosecutor associated by the Bulgarian-language media with Filchev, Rousse regional prosecutor Lyulin Matev, resigned from office after the police intercepted several conversation between him and a man allegedly involved in questionable activities.