Rule of law

Regarding the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), CSOs noted that in the first years after its introduction many legislative efforts had been undertaken in the area of the judiciary, the fight against corruption and organised crime, border security etc. However, opinions were divided on whether the CVM had fulfilled its purpose or not. The last EC report in 2018 welcomed the fact that Bulgaria had achieved three of the six benchmarks; nevertheless, people on the ground did not feel the benefits of any progress made, and there was no empirical way of measuring whether the changes had in fact been effective.

Furthermore, some side effects of the CVM were having a negative impact. The mechanism facilitated political manoeuvring, allowing the government to imitate reforms, as well as to create structures that were not necessarily effective; thus the prosecution of opposition leaders was not effectively prevented. CSOs suggested the need for a transition period from the CVM to the introduction of the new comprehensive rule of law mechanism covering all EU countries.

The situation in Bulgaria was getting worse as regards the rule of law and the fight against corruption and organised crime; the independence of the judiciary and the accountability of the prosecution were viewed as particularly problematic. Bulgaria had gone backwards in terms of ranking in international indices regarding freedom of the media and corruption.

In the past four years, concerted efforts had been made to reform the judiciary (including the constitutional reform in 2015); however, the situation had deteriorated rapidly since 2016, with a number of new pieces of proposed legislation that sometimes directly risked undermining the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, it was stressed that without genuine reform of the Bulgarian prosecution system, it was not possible to talk about the independence of the judiciary in Bulgaria, pointing out that the Bulgarian Prosecution Office very much resembled the old, Soviet-style prosecution system. According to civil society representatives, the prosecutor-general was still in a position of absolute power combined with a complete lack of accountability, despite this being criticised by the CVM on a number of occasions.

The independence of the judges had become much worse over the course of the previous year. The local elections and the election of the new prosecutor-general at the end of October 2019 had influenced public, social and economic life in the country, with unprecedented attacks taking place against judges and their court decisions. This signalled a shrinking space for civil society in general and for professional organisations in particular. It was noted that a bill in parliament proposed to prohibit magistrates from forming any kind of organisation and from participating in any kind of non-governmental organisation.

A very concerning trend was a gradual reduction in access to justice. For example, CSOs working in environmental protection faced hurdles in accessing justice due to a disproportionate increase in court fees when they tried to appeal before the supreme administrative court. Moreover, individuals could not appeal against environmental impact assessments when these concerned sites of priority importance for the country. It was noted with regret that Bulgaria had failed to comply with the decisions of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).

Regarding the CVM mechanism, the government representatives noted that the government was looking forward to the upcoming report, and that all Bulgarian institutions were very committed to satisfying its requirements. They also stressed that the independence of the judiciary in Bulgaria was guaranteed by the Constitution and recalled the main principles guiding the judiciary. Regarding the fight against corruption, the government representatives noted that the Bulgarian government had been working hard on this issue over the years, tackling it at all levels. A number of positive signals in this area could be noted. Looking at the latest GRECO report, it could be seen that most of the recommendations to Bulgaria had already been complied with. A new anti-corruption agency (Commission for Combating Corruption and the Withdrawal of Illegally Acquired Property – KPKONPI) had been established in Bulgaria.

Another important aspect mentioned by the civil society representatives was the issue of state capture, meaning that there were important public institutions, including in the judiciary, which served not the public but rather the individual interests of different groups. This had several negative impacts; for example, the lack of predictability both on the part of the government and the judiciary discouraged foreign investment, which was visibly declining in Bulgaria.

Furthermore, civil society representatives felt that there was a certain amount of foreign influence in the country, which manifested itself through links with Bulgarian oligarchs, for example with regard to ownership of certain mainstream media and support for civil society initiatives.

The civil society representatives concluded that the situation in Bulgaria was not so different from that of Poland and Hungary as regards violations of freedom of association and independence of the judiciary, and called on the European Commission to pay more attention to rule-of-law issues. Lastly, they also noted that Bulgarian citizens felt that justice was not available in the court system, the institutions, healthcare or education.