Independence of the Judiciary and fair trial
The problems of the Bulgarian judiciary remained serious throughout the year and continued to cause concern among local and international observers. They include uneven distribution of resources, including staff, dependency on political and business interests, corruption and nepotism.
The unprincipled staff policy in the Judiciary was the cause for several public declarations of the Union of Judges in Bulgaria, in which it protested decisions made by the Supreme Judicial Council. In May, the Union accused the Supreme Judicial Council, the supreme managerial body of the judiciary, in lack of principles and in turning a blind eye to the professional criteria in the selection of the head of the Sofia Court of Appeals. A media and public scandal occurred in June, when a Supreme Judicial Council member announced that a political lobbyist had contacted magistrates and council members and had secured managerial positions for judges and prosecutors.
Penal proceedings were initiated, the lobbyist was identified and his contacts with magistrates verified. It turned out that many of them had actually talked with him – some as much as 60 or 70 times –about pending appointments to high positions within the judiciary. Most of the incriminated magistrates were demoted and only one judge and one prosecutor were dismissed for their contacts with the lobbyist. In September, the Union of Judges in Bulgaria sent another letter to the Supreme Judicial Council, in which the Union asked for an explanation of the allegations that “the real decisions on the appointment of administrative managers of the courts and of judges are made not by the constitutionally designated supreme body of the judiciary but by an unclear and illegitimate ‘friendly circle’”[1]
In 2009, the ECtHR delivered a series of judgments against Bulgaria, in which it held a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Many of them concern excessive duration of detention (Spas Todorov v. Bulgaria, Rangelov v. Bulgaria, Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria) and of penal and civil proceedings (Nachev v. Bulgaria, Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, Ruga v. Bulgaria, Donka Stefanova v. Bulgaria, Tsvyatkov v. Bulgaria), as well as the lack of an effective domestic remedy. In Dimitar Yankov v. Bulgaria the ECtHR held a violation due to the impossibility of enforcing a court decision against a state body. In Agromodel Ltd. and Mironov v. Bulgaria the court ruled a violation due to the lack of access to court on a civil lawsuit for damages, because of the excessive amount of court fees, which the applicants were unable to pay. In Raykov v. Bulgaria of 22 October 2009, the ECtHR held a violation of the right to access to court, due to the refusal of the authorities to appoint an official solicitor to the applicant in penal proceedings. In Petyo Popov v. Bulgaria of 22 January 2009, the court held a violation in the case of a penal case against the applicant, which has been reviewed by the Supreme Cassation Court in his absence and without the applicant being summoned personally or through his lawyer.
It is assumed that some of the structural problems in the Judiciary, mainly concerning the excessive duration of penal and civil proceedings, will be overcome by the coming into force of the 2006 Code of Criminal Procedure and the 2008 Code of Civil Procedure. However, other problems concerning effective domestic remedies against excessive duration, enforcement against a state body, hearings in the absence of parties, etc., are not dealt with adequately in the new procedural laws.
In 2009, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe continued to monitor the implementation of the individual and the general measures arising from ECtHR decisions against Bulgaria, in many of which a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been found. Of the cases under monitoring, those concerning excessive duration of penal proceedings (Kitov v. Bulgaria of 2003 and similar cases) and excessive duration on civil lawsuits and lack of effective internal legal means of protection against it (Dzhangazov v. Bulgaria of 2004 and similar cases) had the greatest share. By the end of 2009, the Committee of Ministers was monitoring 50 Bulgarian cases in these to groups, or almost 1/3 of all Bulgarian cases under monitoring. On these cases, the Committee of Ministers requires – apart from legislative reforms – a series of administrative measures in the Judiciary, including computerization of the administration, collection and analysis of statistical data, dissemination of ECtHR decisions and training for judges.
[1] For the complete letters, see the website of the Union of Judges in Bulgaria: http://www.judgesbg.com/?m=11&id=1.
