Proposed Overhaul: New Bill Seeks Sweeping Changes to Judicial Selection Process in Bulgaria
Bulgarian lawmakers are proposing a significant overhaul of the country’s judicial selection process, aiming to curb the influence of the current Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) and increase transparency.
The proposal, put forward by the We Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria coalition, seeks to replace the existing selection process for the chief prosecutor and the president of the Supreme Administrative Court. The bill, backed by across-party support, argues that current selection procedures lack transparency and are dominated by a single political entity.
Under the proposed changes, the SJC would be revamped, requiring the National Assembly and judicial bodies to elect a new composition within six months of the changes being enacted. The current SJC’s term has already expired.
The bill also proposes to change the way acting chief prosecutors are chosen. Currently, they are appointed by the SJC’s collegiums. The proposal states that the Plenum of the SJC, a larger body, should be responsible for appointing acting heads. This change effectively gives a larger portion of the SJC members a vote in choosing leadership.
A significant aspect of the proposed reforms is increasing public involvement in the process. The bill mandates that Parliament hold public hearings for candidates for top judicial positions. While Parliament wouldn’t make the final decision during these hearings, the aim is to maximize publicity around the candidate selection process and promote public trust.
The bill addresses concerns about the monolithic nature of the current selection process by introducing a requirement for three members of the SJC Plenum to nominate each candidate, rather than the current approach where the Prosecutor’s College has the sole nominator for the position of chief prosecutor. This change is aimed at preventing a single decimated body from controlling the process, as was evident in the recent selection process for Prosecutor General, where only one candidate emerged.
Furthermore, the proposal introduces double majority requirements for electing presidents of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court.
Candidates would need not only to receive at least 17 votes
For accurate, reliable, and up-to-the-minute information, this site only uses publicly accessible information.
Magazines, newspapers, and other primary sources are responsible for the information presented on this site.
It does not claim to present viewpoint, analyses, or interpretations.
What are the proposed changes to Bulgaria’s judicial selection process?
## Interview: Bulgaria Seeks Sweeping Judicial Changes
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re diving into a significant development in Bulgaria - a proposed overhaul of the country’s judicial selection process. Joining us to discuss this is Alex Reed, an expert on Bulgarian politics and legal affairs.
Welcome to the program.
**Alex Reed:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** Let’s delve right in. This new bill is making quite a splash. Can you give our viewers a quick rundown of what exactly is being proposed?
**Alex Reed:** Certainly. This bill, put forward by the We Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria coalition, aims to fundamentally reshape how Bulgaria selects its top judicial figures, specifically the chief prosecutor and the president of the Supreme Administrative Court. [[1](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ecs-rule-law-report-gives-bulgarias-judicial-reform-good-mouchtar-i7zsf]
Right now, the process is heavily influenced by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which critics say lacks transparency and is controlled by a single political entity.
**Host:** And this bill seeks to change that dynamic?
**Alex Reed:** Precisely. The proposed changes call for a revamped SJC. Its composition would be entirely new, elected within six months by a combination of the National Assembly and judicial bodies. This aims to ensure a more balanced and representative selection process.
**Host:** This sounds like a significant shift in power. What are the key arguments being made both for and against these proposed changes?
**Alex Reed:** The coalition backing the bill argues that these changes are crucial for strengthening judicial independence and increasing public trust in the system. They feel the current system is too vulnerable to political manipulation and lacks accountability.
Opponents, however, might argue that these changes could destabilize the judiciary and lead to further political interference, depending on the composition of the new SJC.
**Host:** We’ll be keeping a close eye on how this bill progresses. Alex Reed, thank you so much for providing your insights on this important topic.
**Alex Reed:** My pleasure.
