Within the next five months we will present five topics of discussion. We will start with ‘Independent court and judicial system.’ Join the discussion ‘How do we ensure the independence of the courts and the judicial system?’ Which will be held on March 31st, at 18:30.
“I swear… to perform my duties according with conscience and conviction, to be impartial, objective and fair…”[1]
“Why is an independent judiciary important?”
The simple answer to this question is: “To make sure that every judge and prosecutor acts with conscience – according to their understanding of good and bad.” That ‘Independence’ means a magistrate acts on their inner conviction and not under the external influence of politicians, corrupt businessmen, or corrupt heads in the system.
Yes, it can be a bad person abusing their rights to benefit personally. But there can be good – from those that are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of the law. These people are heros, that fight corruption, and catch the ‘bad guys’ including their colleagues. This guarantees the independence of these laws that give protective measures from anyone that tries to stop them. In fact the great drama in the Bulgarian justice system is that someone or something is always interfering with the work of the ‘good guys.’ The ‘bad guys’ are much fewer, but the system allows them to thrive and flourish.
Read the following story, to see exactly how this works:
History
The case began in September 2004 when lawyer Hristo Stanchev joined the judiciary to become an investigator and was immediately appointed chief of the 4th Investigation Office in Sofia. Just a few months later in early December 2004, four of his direct subordinates to the Supreme Judical Council (SJC) filed a complaint against him.
They were investigators Boyko Atanasov, Georgi Yordanov, Svetlana Stoyanova-Waizel and Vihra Pophristov who claim that he forced them to break the law, to not detain criminals or to terminate cases. Stanchev ordered his subordinates to be lenient in the infamous case against Bobby Tsankov. Investigators showed evidence that the suppression of an investigative case was worth 50,000 euros, 20,000 to avoid arrest, and Stanchev personally withheld information on people wanted by Interpol. The same month a businessman named Yanchev was accused in a case of document fraud and investigated for an illegal transfer of 15,000 euros abroad, and that he had bribed NSBOP. He had, on the recommendation of his lawyer Georgi Angelov, to bribe Hristo Stanchev to avoid court.
From December 16th to 29th Hristo Stanchev met several times with the lawyer Georgi Angelov, and businessman Yanchev, where Stanchev received 4500 euros. By the end of the month they held the last meeting the three of them in which a lawyer and investigator was retained by NCBOP. On January 26th, 2005 – SCM removed the immunity of Hristo Stanchev unanimously and temporarily removed him from office until the conclusion of the case.
And then when everyone expects the fullest extent of the law to overcome the captured magistrate- criminal, a series of ‘strange events’ happen. Whether an undue influence on the judiciary or not – consider:
In February the same year, the then Chief Prosecutor Nikola Filchev entered into open conflict with the Commission on Corruption SJC because she did not want to deal with the evidence from the subordinates of Stanchev that was being investigated against him.
According to him and his deputy, Hristo Manchev, that wasn’t her job, it didn’t matter that it was created in this design. Rather than stand up for his subordinates, the head of the Investigation Angel Alexandrov publicly threatened his two subordinates, saying that they were the subject to a ‘very serious investigation.’
However, Stanchev went on trial, and in April of 2009 the Sofia City Courty (SCC) ordered Hristo Stanchev just two years of probation and lawyer Angelov a 5000 lev fine. Subsequently the second instance reduced the charges of the lawyer to a fine of just 1000 levs.
Public outrage caused the Supreme Court Cassation (SCC) during 2011 to change the charge of Hristo Stanchev to a fine of 3000 levs. Part of the grounds for the change of the charge was the length of the case and the court’s conclusion that the initial bribe wasn’t from Hristo Stanchev. A little known fact is that the delay in the case is largely the fault of the colleagues of Stanchev during the investigation. Although the case came to a final verdict, meanwhile the investigator had been fired from the judiciary, and from 2005 onwards he stands with the status ‘suspended from office until the conclusion of the case.’
This means that Stanchev only has to wait 2 years for the terms to expire, and in 2013 he will be reinstated, when he will immediately retire, which means he will receive 20 salaries. Interestingly, the magistrate by law may not be the only one who is sentenced to prison, and Stanchev was sentenced to only a fine.
Under public pressure, however, SJC rejected his application for reinstatement because they concluded that since he was convicted for a serious offense, he does not have the moral or professional qualities in accordance with the Code of Ethics for Bulgarian magistrates. Hristo Stanchev appealed however, and now his case is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
What happened in the end with the investigators who were the whitleblowers?
During this time the lives of the investigators, who had the courage to report these crimes against their boss, turned dark; they were subjected to humiliating treatment by their boss. Not wanting to be a part of this, Georgi Yordanov left the system and became a lawyer, and Boyko Atanasov remains in the system.
Bitter consolation for the two investigators was the reward of ‘Magistrate of the Year for 2004’ by the then Minister of Justice – Anton Stankov.
The above real life situation should lead everyone to make certain conclusions about the systematic problems in the justice system.
Conclusions:
The Story of the Beholder
Here’s an analysis of the scenario by investigative journalist Lilia Hristovska, who has closely followed the developing story from the beginning:
How do we solve these Problems?
If you feel, that cases like this should not be repeated and share the conclusion that systemic problems must be addressed in the field of justice, to ensure the independence of the judiciary and thus improve the fight against corruption in the country, join in with your support and efforts in the cause of promoting and reforming the judiciary!
Participate in the discussion on the topic ‘How can we Guarantee the Independence of the Courts and Judicial System?’ Which will be held on March 31st at 18:30.
Support the facebook group ‘Law & Order: Justice in five steps’ ("Право и ред: справедливост в пет стъпки" във фейсбук)
Share opinions, ask questions, or offer solutions in the comments section below. Talk with people, discuss, seek solutions and act! Join in!
[1] From the oath for judges, prosecutors and investigators from art. 155 and 156 of the Judiciary Act. (чл. 155 и 156 от Закона за съдебната власт.)
