This Parliament also did not develop a mechanism to investigate the Prosecutor General

This Parliament also did not develop legal mechanism for investigation of the chief prosecutor (if there is sufficient evidence they have committed a crime). This morning, January 31, it became clear that there will not be enough time for the MPs to adopt the changes proposed by the Council of Ministers to the Criminal Procedure Code. And in the last working hour of today, MPs refused to shorten the deadline for proposals between first and second reading from seven to three days.

The issue also provoked an argument in absentia between legal committee chairman Radomir Cholakov of GERB and the caretaker justice minister. Cholakov accused Zarkov of pressuring Parliament to adopt the amendments. In response, Zarkov commented that he had been exerting pressure for faster adoption both as a protester and as an MP, and in the last month - as a minister. In his words, such a mechanism will be adopted despite the resistance of some MPs.

Willingness or time was not enough for the MPs?

Or there was too much desire and it hindered them because they did not consider that the procedures would hinder them. It should be noted that the Government's draft law, which complies with both the Venice Commission's opinion and that of the Council of Europe, was tabled at 5 to 12, that is to say, on 30 December. Before that, several other draft laws were tabled - one by Nadezhda Yordanova and her colleagues from the Democratic Bulgaria, one by Boyko Rashkov and MPs from “We Continue the Change”, and one by “Vazrazhdane”. All of them were proposed as changes in the Criminal Procedure Code. It so happened that all of them had to be considered in a package and in January they went through committees, and late last week, on Friday, they were adopted at first reading and in the chamber.

Only the darft proposed by Nadezhda Yordanova was rejected. According to the rules, they should be consolidated in into one common draft law and this is what the legal affairs committee did at an extraordinary sitting early this morning. And this gave rise to the argument of the day - whether there is time for these drafts to reach a second reading and be adopted before the dissolution of the 48th Parliament.

In the final hours of the 48th National Assembly, some MPs rushed to pass the mechanism for investigation of the Prosecutor General (if there is evidence of committed crime). The tone was set by the legal affairs committee, which in an emergency session merged the four drafts, passed by parliament late last week into one. This made it clear that if the deadline for motions between the first and second readings is as per the rules, the law will not be passed conclusively until the dissolution of the National Assembly. And the caretaker Justice Minister commented that there are not enough MPs in the current Parliament who want to adopt this mechanism.

"The law was tabled on December 30. The first possible moment after the Venice Commission's opinions were accepted. Reflected, discussed, adopted the opinion of the Council of Europe. 30 days have passed since then. Of those 30 days, at least 8 were lost in procedural tricks. During those 30 days, the National Assembly managed to do important things. But it did not find the strength within itself to adopt this law", said Krum Zarkov.

Miroslav Ivanov of “We Continue the Change” accused parties of being unwilling to accept the mechanism for controlling the Prosecutor General.

Democratic Bulgaria first demanded from the parliamentary rostrum that the report on the general law be announced by the chairman of the session as soon as it was tabled.

"The general bill was announced to unite all the bills adopted at the first reading to amend and supplement the Criminal Procedure Code. So the procedure is going on. We will make a proposal for the shortest possible time between the first and second reading," said Nadezhda Yordanova, deputy chair of the Democratic Bulgaria group.

The shortest possible deadline for motions under the rules is three days, if this is supported in chamber.

"Even if a time limit for additional motions between the first and second reading of three days is adopted, which, by the way, is absurd and every lawyer knows that to give three days for motions on such complex and important bills is simply a mockery of legislation. But even supposing that a three-day period for proposals between first and second reading is adopted. This means that these proposals must then be processed, summarized, then included in a report, the report to enter the second vote, which can last quite a long time, because we are talking about 6 bills, "said Radomir Cholakov, chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, MP from the GERB - UDF.

It turned out that during a closed sitting, a proposal was made to shorten the time limit for proposals between the two readings to three days, said Kostadin Kostadinov of "Vazrazhdane".

"We of course support this. What is our surprise that those who proposed the shortening of the deadlines anyway in order to be able to vote on the judicial reform were not in full composition. It was not only three people from the DB who were not present, it was their entire parliamentary group. Those from "We Continue the Change” were missing 1/3. 40 people barely. The vote was as follows 40 from “We Continue the Change”, 26 from “Vazrazhdane” we have one single one who is absent because he became a father for the second time last week and that is why he is not in the chamber. And only 17 from "DB", Kostadinov said.

Thus, according to Kostadinov, a total of 85 voted for shortening the deadline, 84 from GERB - UDF and MRF were "against", 19 "abstained" and the proposal was not adopted. Earlier, the Justice Minister commented that in this or the next parliament this law will be adopted.

"I have been accused of exerting pressure. This is absolutely true. I pressured as a protester, I pressured as an MP, I pressured as a minister last month. And I will continue to press until our country becomes a true state under the rule of law," said Krum Zarkov.

"So this pressure is currently being used for purely political purposes. I would say if Ms Nadezhda Yordanova and Mr Krum Zarkov really wanted these legislative proposals to be adopted, they could have done so in the previous Parliament. They lost a year and a half and now they are just in hysterics", Radomir Cholakov said.

Thus, the 48th National Assembly is another one that will fail to adopt a mechanism for investigating the Prosecutor General.

Would the time have run out if the deadline for proposals between the two readings was three days?

At this stage, we know that Parliament will be dissolved on 3 February. This was announced by the President last week. If the motion for a three-day period for motions had been passed today at 17:20, it would have expired on that date. And after that deadline, the motions should have been summarised and then the law should have been considered, text by text, with all the additional proposals at second reading in committee. And only then it would have gone to chamber, and we have all witnessed how long the disputes between MPs usually last. So the three-day deadline was unlikely to be the solution that would lead to the final adoption of this draft law.

Чуйте последните новини, където и да сте!
Последвайте ни във Facebook и Instagram
Следете и канала на БНТ в YouTube
Вече може да ни гледате и в TikTok
Намерете ни в Google News