Sofia struggles against communist legacy

Date: 21/04/05

Bulgaria's judicial authorities do not seem to have earned much respect from the public. Surveys by Transparency International over the past two years have seen them ranked alongside political parties and the customs service as the institutions perceived as being most corrupt.

Olli Rehn, the European commissioner for enlargement, has put judicial reform and the fight against corruption at the top of his list of demands on Bulgaria.

The number one concern for the Finn is what happens before cases go to trial. In its 2004 monitoring report on Bulgaria, the European Commission implied that investigators were too easily swayed by outside pressure.

Krassimir Kanev from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, a human rights group, complains that some of the criminal justice structures have remained largely unchanged since the communist era. "Prosecutors who lead pre-trial investigations still have powers that are very extensive," he says. "They do not deal just with prosecuting crimes but they are also party to the pre-trial and trial procedures. In addition, they have the status of magistrates, they can say who should be elected a judge and influence the decisions of a judge."

To ensure judicial independence, Kanev argues that the constitution would need to be altered, a step that would require an ad hoc national assembly to be formed. "There is no political will for this whatsoever," he adds. "Politicians are afraid of calling a constitutional assembly because a constitutional assembly could change everything."

"The prosecutors' office needs to be more accountable and transparent," notes Dimitar Markov from the Centre for the Study of Democracy in Sofia. "The investigating service is part of the judicial system. That is not the case in other European countries."

An additional problem is the cumbersome nature of legal procedures. On several occasions the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled that Bulgaria fails to ensure that cases are tried within a reasonable period of time. It is common for cases that ought to be at an advanced stage to be referred back to investigators. According to the EU executive, this unwieldy system impedes the authorities developing an effective strategy against organised crime.

Markov says that studies by his centre concluded that the judiciary itself recognises that corruption is rife within its ranks. With judicial officials earning €300-1,000 each month, many are tempted to accept bribes to supplement their wages. Yet observers of Bulgarian affairs are quick to point out that such officials are paid more than most other public servants.

Katia Hristova of Transparency International says there are some positive signals. Representatives from the Bavarian prosecutor's office and the Spanish judiciary are offering advice to the Bulgarian authorities on how improvements can be introduced. But she cannot see any tangible developments occurring before the general election on 25 June.

"The factors that contribute to the high levels of corruption in Bulgarian public and private life can be attributed to the great political and economic changes in the past few years," she explains. "During the transition period, practically all sectors underwent some kind of a rearrangement, causing significant instability, which was manifested by high levels of poverty, bad social conditions and recurrent unemployment.

"This was used by different people to set and solidify a climate of corruption. The lack of relevant anti-corruption bodies, as well as powerful state institutions with the experience and resources to block acts of corruption contributed to the image of Bulgaria as a country with deep-rooted corruption."

Article looks at the reform of the judiciary system in Bulgaria, one of the major concerns of the European Union ahead of the country's accession to the EU, planned for 2007.