Радомир Чолаков, депутат от ГЕРБ, Фейсбук:
Госпожа Лена Бориславова се възторгнала във Фейсбук, че Венецианската комисия била „одобрила законопроекта на кабинета „Петков“ за механизъм за независимо разследване на главния прокурор в България.“ Винаги съм подозирал, че освен дефицит на юридически познания, в „кабинета Петков“ се наблюдаваше и сериозен дефицит от познания по английски език, включващ както чисто езиковата, така и функционална грамотност. За да проверим дали екипът на „кабинета Петков“ знае и разбира английски език, ще ги помоля да преведат публично следните пасажи от двете становища на Венецианската комисия, приети на 22.10.2022 г: Ако не могат, ще им ги преведа аз. Но, на първо четене, шамарът е оглушителен.
За измененията в НК във връзка с главния прокурор:
– The assessment of the current draft Law therefore cannot be made purely from the perspective of criminal procedure law, which is the main focus of the proposed amendments. For the Venice Commission, the criminal law tools in isolation are not capable of providing a comprehensive response to this challenge. The assessment of the accountability of the PG will require a holistic revision of the legal framework governing the activities of the PG, including an analysis of the criminal and disciplinary mechanisms of accountability as well as parliamentary oversight that should be put in place and operate effectively to secure cumulatively the overall efficiency of the system.
– However, the regular reporting should not extent to an obligation to report to the Parliament on the details of individual cases and should not result in the vote of “no confidence” in the PG.
– A constitutional amendment (which might affect Articles 126-130a of the Constitution), allowing for the creation of a mechanism of independent prosecution which is not a part of the general prosecution system, or a comparable mechanism would be the “cleanest” solution. However, the constitutional amendment is a much more complex procedure, even if a solution allowing an ordinary parliament to adopt the amendment is retained. In addition, if a solution is such as to involve a Grand National Assembly, it would be almost unworkable since it requires the рarliament to dissolve itself.
– There remains a risk that this solution may be challenged before the Constitutional Court.
– The Venice Commission, however, believes that the goal of improving the accountability of the Prosecutor General cannot be achieved by changing the rules on criminal investigations only. A more holistic approach, involving the revision of the institutional design of the Supreme Judicial Council and its prosecutorial chamber, and circumscribing the functions of the prosecution service outside of the criminal law sphere, may be necessary to achieve this goal.
– As to the proposed draft Law, the Venice Commission makes the following main recommendations:
• the eligibility criteria for the ad hoc prosecutor should be specified in more detail;
• the candidates to the position of the ad hoc prosecutor should consent to their inclusion
in the list and their appointment;
• the draft Law should regulate situations and procedural consequences where the ad hoc
prosecutor may be suspended or removed;
• the scope of judicial review of the procedural activities of the ad hoc prosecutor should be specified in greater detail;
• the draft Law should determine the scope of general hierarchical prosecutorial control over the ad hoc prosecutor and specify the necessary exceptions and procedural safeguards for the latter;
• a sifting mechanism for disposing of clearly unfounded сomplaints against the Prosecutor General should be introduced
– However, a closer look at the draft amendments, which would result in allocating additional powers to the Inspectorate, makes the Commission believe that these draft amendments neither necessarily strengthen the Inspectorate’s role for the prevention and counteraction of corruption in the judiciary, nor address the main deficiencies identified by the Venice Commission in its previous opinions.
– Therefore, the Commission considers that instead of a fragmented approach concerning the reform of the Inspectorate which has been chosen by the Bulgarian authorities, a more holistic reform of the Inspectorate is needed.
– Тhe draft amendments do not prescribe substantive rules of ethical behaviour of magistrates as such, leaving a substantial margin of appreciation to the bodies developing and adopting the Codes of Ethical Conduct. Both the draft amendments (Article 54 §1(19) and the Explanatory Report in this regard refer to the “relevant European and international standards”. However, such general wording is hardly in line with the principle of foreseeability of legal norms
– The Venice Commission welcomes the intention of the authorities to strengthen the integrity of the judiciary. However, the Commission would like to stress again the importance of sequencing reforms. Before giving new powers to the Inspectorate, it is necessary to review its institutional model and define more clearly the scope of its mandate.
Докато чакаме екипът на „кабинета Петков“ да превежда и понеже не сме сигурни доколко те наистина знаят английски, ще замоля министър Крум Зарков да поръча и публикува официален превод на двете становища. Дано, като ги прочетат на български, ги разберат. Макар, че и в това се съмнявам.