Quotes from Judge Galya Georgieva's statements at the Prosecutorial College of the SJC meeting on 6 March 2024

On March 6, 2024, Judge Galya Georgieva was heard at her request before the Prosecutor’s Chamber of the High Judicial Council. The occasion for her hearing was the current events after the shooting outside his home in Sofia of Martin Bojanov nicknamed “The Notary” − a person about whom the Anti-Corruption Fund foundation years ago published information about his participation in racketeering and influence-peddling in the judiciary in complicity with magistrates. We present Judge Georgieva’s statements in which she openly attacks the Anti-Corruption Fund, downplays the threats against sitting magistrates, which have also been reported in recent weeks, and tries to discredit public statements of witnesses of corrupt influence in the judiciary due to the fact that they are indicted.

About the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation:

“Representatives of the Anti-Corruption Fund are present in the committee; by the way, if I am not mistaken, they have been dealing with the issue of Denkov’s pre-trial detention measures since 2021. I will provide you with details of the Anti-Corruption Fund, the statute of this foundation, and who sits on the board of this foundation.

As a judge with 40 years of experience, this is all I am concerned with, and I am asking myself what the aims of this foundation are and whether this foundation is above the prosecutor's office. That is why I have actually come to tell you so that you will think about this question - the Anti-Corruption Fund is above the prosecutor's office [...].

This appeal of mine to you to verify what I claim is for you. Because from 2021 until now [...] and I will ask you to download from the Internet and watch a film created by Mrs Bakalova with the kind assistance of the Anti-Corruption Fund [...]. I am aware as a judge, but I will not say it out loud, you will understand me as fellow lawyers and as long-time prosecutors - why all this is being done, why my name is mentioned in connection to this group, and what is being sought by those who spoke before the Committee. On the Anti-Corruption Fund, here, I present to you here the registration, the statutes, who manages it and how they manage it, you see. It is unacceptable for a foundation to take over the functions of the prosecution.

By the way, when this Anti-Corruption Fund started to go around the media, I decided to look at its registration, to see who is running it. Well, I am very worried that foreigners are involved in the management of this Anti-Corruption Fund [...]. There is also the name of a general who is not a Bulgarian general, and I ask − does this not affect our national security? Since foreigners can - and this is also written in the statutes - be involved in controlling the judiciary, whether it is the prosecution, whether it is a court, they will investigate, etc. And I have pointed out to you article ten, if I am not mistaken, of the Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities [someone from the floor tips the exact name of the law to her] - think about it, tell the prosecutors to think about this text, to find a brave prosecutor to review these documents, there may be different developments.”

On threats against judges:

“Colleagues are complaining about being threatened. Well, what can I say when a journalist was admitted to the Sofia Central Prison with the help of the lawyer of the convicted Milev [...], they threaten me that when I administer justice as a specialised judge, some things will happen to me and I say - colleague, you are in a big mistake [...]”.

Question by Gergana Mutafova (SJC member) about the pressure on magistrates, in particular on judges:

“Threats by different types of parties [...] against judges ... have you been targeted by a defendant/parties in a case ... have you been the subject of a special defence?”

Georgieva replies:

“Yes, I have been threatened, I don’t know how many times now, but there was one drastic case in 2003 [...] after I finished a murder case, I received a threat that I would be killed, and it was told to me by the person who had received the order. Then security was assigned to me, by the Ministry of Interior, for nine months. I don’t want to say what I went through, and my family, and the child, it was a bit [...] I have had other threats, but in the end, people took action.”

Along with the normalization of threats against judges and attacks against the Anti-Corruption Fund, Judge Georgieva commented on the activities of the special parliamentary commission formed to deal with corruption in the judiciary, as well as one of the witnesses of such practices, Veselin Denkov:

About Veselin Denkov and the Temporary Parliamentary Committee:

“Everything I heard from a defendant with three pending cases of a general nature for three crimes - the first is usury, on which I have ruled on pre-trial detention measures, the second is racketeering, for - if I am not mistaken, so from memory, - for 800,000 leva or euros, I cannot be precise, you can check, regarding Marangozova and her husband, and the third pending - this is for complicity in murder as an instigator and an aider. [...]

And I ask the following [...] is it permissible for the National Assembly, even if by some of their internal rules, to set up a special committee, is this a problem for the legislature? Can these pending cases be commented on by the defendant, Ms Bakalova, and a lawyer, Ms. Ina Lulcheva? They were at the hearing [...]

In the usury case in which I have ruled on remand measures [...] there is classified material [...] Is it appropriate to disclose it in this way?

[...] and forgive me MPs, I do not trust this committee, and I will tell you why. Because mud is being thrown at magistrates, including myself, who have worked in specialised justice. When these committees are made in the National Assembly, where does the independence of the Bulgarian magistrate, whether judge, prosecutor or investigator, go, or should we crush Bulgarian magistrates and be scared? I am not afraid, I am not worried, and I will not let irresponsible talk about my personality be thrown in public [...] We have been working under pressure for some time, and this pressure is purely political [...]

This commission involves politicians who were on the front line when the Judiciary Act was amended, and special justice was introduced. I asked them by letter which working group had come up with this amendment, but they did not reply.

[…]

"The supreme judicial councils [...] must stand behind the court and the prosecution and show that there is a judiciary in this country, that there is separation of powers, that power cannot kill power."