Welcome to the Judiciary Circus: Where the Seats Are Expired and the Clowns Are in Charge!
Gather ‘round, dear readers! Today we delve into the beautifully chaotic world of legal gymnastics and political ballet as Olga Kerelska, one of the three members of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), takes the stage. Now, she’s raised a ruckus over the legality of electing a chief prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). Just when you thought that free-for-alls were reserved for children’s birthday parties, here we have legal lingo that rivals the chaos of a toddler playpen!
The Obstacle Course: A Legal Extravaganza!
Now, let’s break it down for you. Apparently, under paragraph 23, paragraph 2 of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution (yes, that’s a real thing, and no, I haven’t made it up), there’s a temporary ban that’s got the SJC tangled in legislative knots. It’s like they’ve shown up to a race with expired tickets and are wondering why everyone is staring at them like they’ve just moonwalked into a funeral.
In her own words, Ms. Kerelska boldly stated,
“This matter should be clarified before proceeding to open such proceedings.” Such clarity! It’s a little like asking a cat to explain quantum physics—complex and increasingly perplexing!
But wait, there’s a twist! Although she warns of the legal conundrum, she admits that there isn’t a “legal possibility” to halt these elections. So, she’s effectively saying, “We know this is a mess, but hey, let’s roll the dice and see what happens!” What a thrilling entry into the world of judiciary decisions!
The SJC’s Expired Mandate: Legal Drama Unfolds
Ms. Kerelska makes a valid point (for once—you could hear the pin drop), noting that the SJC’s mandate expired two years ago. Yes, TWO years ago! That’s like getting a library book and pretending you can still keep it after it implodes.
She continues, “Do we have the authority to elect the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Court?” Ah, the age-old question: “Do we even remember how to play this game?” And with opinions as divided as a pizza at a weight-watchers meeting, it seems we’re in for a legal standoff.
External Influences: The Not-So-Hidden Hand
But here comes the juicy part—Kerelska talks about the big, bad wolf of the judiciary world: outside interference! A shadowy figure lurking behind the curtain, whispering sweet nothings that lead to major decisions being made outside the SJC’s hallowed halls. It’s like finding out your favorite magician uses a trapdoor!
If you’re sitting comfortably, you might want to brace yourself for this revelation:
“The invisible intervention that destroys the system… is dangerous!” Well, wouldn’t we all like to know where that invisible intervention has stashed its snacks? Perhaps a secret meeting in a basement somewhere?
And Ms. Kerelska’s call for political will to “suspend” that treacherous interference? That’s rich! It’s the judicial version of saying, “With enough pixie dust, we can make it work!” We love optimism, but we’d need a hippo-sized dose of magic for that to pan out.
The Grand Finale: A Call to Arms or a Call to Chaos?
So here we stand, dear readers, at the intersection of legality, authority, and confusion, thanks to our dear friend Ms. Kerelska. Just when you think the judiciary couldn’t get more entertaining, they throw in a legal cliffhanger that’s gripping enough to rival your favorite soap opera.
As we watch this spectacle unfold, let’s grab our popcorn and wait for the SJC to either untangle this mess or dive deeper into the circus of absurdity. Remember, the judiciary might be blind, but it certainly knows how to juggle a few flaming torches of controversy along the way!
Until next time, keep your legal documents close, your lawyers closer, and maybe a good sense of humor at the ready!
There is a legal obstacle to holding the election of the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court, he said on Sunday to the BNR Olga Kerelskawho was one of the three members of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) who were against the opening of the two procedures for the election of the Chief Prosecutor and the President of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). According to her, the council with an expired mandate does not have the moral right to conduct the election.
What is the obstacle?
In her words, the legal obstacle is expressed in the fact that in the provision of paragraph 23, paragraph 2 of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Constitution, a temporary ban was introduced for the current composition of the SJC to conduct this election of the so-called three big ones in the judicial system, and at the moment the question is not only about electing the president of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC).
The cited provision was not expressly repealed by the decision of the Constitutional Court, which repealed a significant part of the changes in the basic law.
“I think so this matter should be clarified before proceeding to open such proceedingssubmitting applications and holding the election itself”said Olga Karelska.
However, she warned that there is currently no legal possibility to stop the procedure for the two elections.
KS says he can
Olga Kerelska reminded that the mandate of the SJC expired 2 years ago:
“And to be even more clear – we have entered our third year after the expiration of our regular mandate. The question is whether we, with this expired mandate, have the authority to elect the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Court. Here, the opinions of lawyers are divided. . . . . I think that this issue should be clarified by the Constitutional Court”.
According to her, by the dates for the election of the chief prosecutor and the chairman of the SAC, the composition of the SCC will be 20 people, i.e. “our composition is very incomplete and it would be good to answer this question as well – does it matter if this majority of 17 votes for the president of the SAC is not provided for in a composition of the SJC of 25 people, I think that this is exactly the idea of the legislator and that is how it is spelled out in the law”.
Some of the important decisions of the SJC are under pressure from outside, stated Olga Kerelska and recalled the words of the former chief prosecutors Ivan Geshev and Sotir Tsatsarov that important decisions of the SJC “are taken in another place” – “in two or three buildings that do not coincide with the building of the SJC”.
“Some actions of the SJC really give grounds for doubts in this direction”she added and commented:
The dangerous outside interference in the judiciary
“I’m not optimistic that the judicial system could solve its problems on its own, because I don’t think that the problems are self-created and self-reproducing. These are things that come from outside. … The invisible intervention that destroys the system and creates the problems in it is dangerous. The vicious interference in the work of the judiciary is covert interference. It is not dangerous for the Minister of Justice to make a proposal for the chief prosecutor and chairman of the Supreme Court, because it is so by law, and I do not think that this is at all an interference in the independence of the judiciary. Hidden influences, undercurrents and influences that are exerted both on the governing bodies of the judiciary and on specific judges when deciding a case are dangerous.“.
According to her, with political will, interference in the activities of the SJC and all bodies of judicial power can be suspended.