Extension of the Mandate of the Inspectorate of the Judicial Council contradicts EU law
The extension of the mandates of the members of a judicial authority, such as the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council, is incompatible with the EU law, the EU court ruled after a request from the Sofia District Court.
The court’s announcement states that the extension of the work of the Inspectorate with an unclear deadline is contrary to the principle of independence of the judges.
The request to the Luxembourg court was brought in 2023 by the Bulgarian judge Andrei Georgiev, who had to rule on several requests from the Inspectorate for access to a banking secret of magistrates. Before deciding, the judge decided to make sure that the demands of the inspectorate, whose mandate had expired in 2020, were legitimate.
Disagree with the judicial inspector’s term of office: a prerequisite for the purest dependence
Sarafov to MPs: You are publicly humiliated magistrates because of political and other interests
The EU Court of Justice now says the opposite. According to him, such a practice « raises doubts about the independence of the authority and creates the risk of political control over judicial activities. » It is reminded that Member States are obliged to ensure that the continuation of the functions of such bodies after the expiry of the mandates is carried out on the basis of legal provisions that provide objectivity, impartiality and protection against external intervention.
Overdue mandates outside a reasonable period contradicts the Constitution
« When Member States decide to extend the mandates, they are obliged to ensure that the exercise of the functions after the expiration of the term is based on an explicit legal framework in national law. They must also guarantee that the conditions and manner in which the exercise is made, that the members of the relevant judicial body are made. The court, which found that there is no such arrangement in Bulgaria.
« If in certain cases the extension of the mandates may be necessary, given the importance of the functions performed by the relevant judicial body, this is only admissible and provided that the extension is bound by clear and accurate rules that virtually exclude the possibility of it being unlimited in time, » the statement of the judgment is said in Luke.
