The judiciary is at a critical moment, and the state must find an adequate way out of the crisis. Andrey Yankulov, a candidate for a member of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) from the parliamentary quota, said this during his hearing before the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Assembly.
“The judiciary is at a critical moment, from which the state must find an adequate way out,” Yankulov said.
He presented his views on the institutional environment and pointed to the lack of reactions from the prosecution service and the SJC in tragic events involving prosecutors. According to him, extremely negative processes have developed within the prosecution service, leading to an erosion of public support for the judicial system.
Three problems in personnel management
According to Yankulov, the SJC must build an institutional culture in which decisions are made in the public interest. He highlighted three main problems in the judiciary’s personnel management.
The first is the SJC’s decisions that contradict the law. The second concerns the selection of administrative heads, which cannot be defended when problematic data about a given candidate is ignored. The third problem is the unpredictable career development of the majority of magistrates.
Yankulov’s hearing is part of the procedure for electing members of the SJC from the parliamentary quota. The Legal Affairs Committee is considering the candidacies of a total of 20 people. The hearings began on November 2 and are due to end on November 6.
Other candidates also pointed to institutional problems
During the meeting, Veselin Vuchkov said that the SJC must create an environment that prevents circles of influence from entering and becoming entrenched in the judicial system. He identified the excessive delay of competitions, particularly those related to career development, as the main problem in the work of the current composition.
Ekaterina Salkova described the judicial system as being in a serious institutional crisis. She also cited the widespread confrontation between magistrates as a cause, including the conflict between the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Prosecutor General. In her view, a more detailed mechanism is needed for responding when pressure is exerted on magistrates.
Candidate Emil Dechev focused on the independence of prosecutors and investigating magistrates, education at law faculties, and problems with the random allocation of prosecutorial case files. He also criticized the practice of appointing prosecutors from lower levels to managerial positions in higher-level prosecution offices.