The case of constitutional judge Desislava Atanasova, following allegations of her joint travels with Delyan Peevski and the subsequent call by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee for her resignation, has sparked a serious public and legal debate. Where do the moral and legal responsibility of a constitutional judge intersect, what are the mechanisms for seeking accountability and why is trust in the Constitutional Court being put to the test? Lawyer Adela Kachaunova, director of the Legal Protection Program of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, spoke to FACTI.
- Ms. Kachaunova, the BHC has demanded the resignation of constitutional judge Desislava Atanasova. What is the main legal and moral argument behind this position?
- We requested the resignation of Desislava Atanasova for two reasons - one is related to Minister Demerdzhiev's allegations about her joint flights with Delyan Peevski to Dubai, with a private carrier. This is an expensive service and raises doubts about who paid for such flights and why such gifts are missing from her property declarations. Her ties with Delyan Peevski are circulating in the public domain, but the data presented by the Minister of Interior is the first public confirmation that such a connection exists between them.
The second and no less important reason is related to her initial unfitness to be a constitutional judge. She does not meet the minimum requirements for holding such a high position and this devalues trust in the Constitutional Court as a whole. Her election as a constitutional judge is a particularly shameful moment in the history of behind-the-scenes recruitment, and its consequences are serious.
- After Desislava Atanasova presented documents stating that she traveled to Istanbul, not Dubai, do you think this changes the grounds for your requested resignation? In general, how do you assess the public response of Desislava Atanasova, who presented documents from the Bulgarian and Turkish authorities in her defense?
- The claims of Minister Demerdzhiev, on the one hand, and Desislava Atanasova, on the other, are truly problematic. Unfortunately, the Minister of the Interior seems to be attacking Atanasova through the media, after making small portions of claims that in themselves raise questions - both about the method of collecting the data, and about the contradictory data that various structures of the Ministry of the Interior provide, and about the purpose of this media noise. We should not forget that the data he provided contains alarming facts about corruption at the highest level, circumvention of the “Magnitsky“ sanctions, but also about covert cooperation from state institutions, which Peevski seems to have used in the past.
For her part, Desislava Atanasova uses the official website of the Constitutional Court for personal positions, and her colleagues neither come out in her support nor distance themselves from her.
Her defense is unconvincing and, although it does indeed discredit the version about the joint trips with Peevski to Dubai, it contains data about the use of a diplomatic passport for other, non-official, purposes, as well as the simultaneous use of her personal passport. I find that this once again undermines the prestige of the Constitutional Court and Ms. Atanasova can only defend her dignity by resigning.
- Where do you think the line between the moral responsibility and the legal responsibility of a constitutional judge is?
- A constitutional judge must possess high professional and high moral qualities. Ms. Atanasova was elected as a constitutional judge despite her lack of professional qualities. The fact that she agrees to hold this position, even though she has worked as a lawyer for no more than 4 years, also speaks of a lack of moral qualities. The Constitutional Court is not a haven for retired politicians. In the absence of any legal mechanisms to address this problem created by the MPs who voted for her in 2024, we rely solely on a sense of morality, duty and dignity.
- If it is categorically proven that Atanasova did not travel with Delyan Peevski, what will that mean...
- If this is proven, the spotlight should be on the Minister of the Interior and he should explain why he carried out this coordinated attack specifically against Atanasova and not so much against the officials who allowed Delyan Peevski to travel freely, to conceal his travels by using more than one passport, to be accompanied by various persons, even though he was sanctioned under the global “Magnitsky“ law. The concealment of his free movement and the use of expensive services did not happen without the complicity of specific officials and without the turning a blind eye by institutions that were supposed to investigate corruption or money laundering.
- Why does the constitutional judge have a diplomatic passport. A protected magistrate, and diplomatic protection… Why?
- It is normal for a constitutional judge to use a diplomatic passport. Persons who use diplomatic protection are listed in the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act – these are a wide range of individuals, the president, the governor of the Bulgarian National Bank, the Secretary General of the National Assembly, and many others. Constitutional judges are particularly respected and enjoy high trust in society, at least by design, and they are also tasked with deciding issues of exceptional state importance, without the possibility of reviewing their decisions.
- In what cases can a constitutional judge be removed?
- A constitutional judge cannot be removed. His mandate ends with the expiration of the term, upon death, entry into force of a conviction, incompatibility if elected to another position, actual inability to perform his functions for more than a year, or resignation. The Constitution does not provide for a situation in which a judge can be removed through a special procedure if doubts arise about his suitability. The Constitution relies on collective morality and on those who elect or appoint constitutional judges, but also on the individuals themselves, who are ready to take on this high responsibility.
- How does this case affect trust in the Constitutional Court and is there not a risk that the political debate will be transferred to one of the most important institutions in the state?
- Unfortunately, the negatives are for trust in the Constitutional Court, but I repeat, these negatives have been present since Atanasova's election two and a half years ago. The political debate should remain for politicians, and allegations of corruption, abuse, money laundering or other crimes should be adequately investigated by the prosecutor's office or the anti-corruption commission. Therefore, the actions of the minister and his abundant media appearances, "throwing" accusations and suggestions, but also threats towards Atanasova – in the style of “not to dig too much, it will get worse“, are worrying in turn. Unfortunately, this is reminiscent of the selective and partial disclosure of allegations of crimes that Ivan Geshev did as Prosecutor General, for example.
- What institutional changes are necessary so that there are no such doubts about the contacts, travels and transparency of people holding the highest state positions?
- Before we talk about institutional changes, let us demand that every representative of an institution fulfills his duties conscientiously, and that people who hold high state positions actually possess the relevant qualities.