Open letter to the members of the SJC in relation to the statements of Council member Boyan Novansky of 7 July 2022
The Committee requested the resignation of Mr. Novansky
The comments of Judge Galya Georgieva of the Court of Appeals − Sofia during her hearing on the case of Martin Bojanov, nicknamed “The Notary”, on March 6, 2024, before the Prosecutorial Collegium of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which performs the functions of the Supreme Prosecutorial Council, caused deep disappointment and embarrassment. This activity of the College of Prosecutors continues today, 13 March 2024, with questions to prosecutors.
An important detail is that Judge Galya Georgieva was heard by the Prosecutorial Chamber at her request. She made a series of statements, with which she clearly opposed the exposure of one of the organised criminal groups trading with influence in the judiciary. Instead of defending the independence of the judiciary, Georgieva attacked civil society, which has helped to expose serious corruption and influence peddling among magistrates in particular. At the same time, she defended the eavesdropping on magistrates, a method pointed to as a tool to place them in a position of dependency and downplayed criminal threats against fellow magistrates, victims or witnesses of the activities of organised criminal groups involving magistrates.
Georgieva openly attacked the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation, an organization with outstanding achievements in documenting and exposing influence peddling in the judiciary in recent years. She used language and innuendo that the international democratic community has repeatedly condemned as against civil liberties. Georgieva questioned the legitimacy of the organisation’s activities due to the participation of foreign nationals in its governing bodies. This defamatory rhetoric, which stigmatises organisations critical of the government as “foreign agents” opposed to patriotism and national identity, is more characteristic of nationalist parties and totalitarian regimes and their leaders than of a magistrate administering justice in a democratic society. From the height of her profession as a judge, Galya Georgieva used unambiguous references, including guidance to change the legislation on non-profit legal entities in the direction of restricting the right to peaceful association on discriminatory grounds (foreign origin or citizenship) and to label the civil sector as a threat to national security. Such proposals are grossly inconsistent with international human rights standards.
It is extremely disturbing for a magistrate to take such undemocratic positions, and for members of the Prosecutorial College to not only listen uncritically but also to make convenient remarks to the person being heard. It should be recalled that in July 2022, we witnessed similar statements by a member of the SJC, Bojan Nowanski, whose resignation we demanded because of his demonstrative disregard for civil society. Mr. Nowanski did not resign and has continued to participate in decisions about the management of the judiciary to this day.
The forum Georgieva has chosen to make her statements is puzzling, given that she appears to be complaining about allegations circulated in 2021 by the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation. In her view, the latter were damaging to her reputation. Like every Bulgarian citizen, Georgieva had and still has, the legal possibility to defend her good name in court by filing a lawsuit or a complaint against the persons concerned.
Other comments of hers were apparently directed against the public appearances of Judge Vladislava Tsarigradska. In a belittling tone, Galia Georgieva stated that she, too, had been victimised by a defendant whom she had convicted, and it was clear from the context that she did not attach any particular weight or importance to this circumstance. This, as well as some of the questions from members of the Prosecutorial Chamber, normalized the threats, including the threats to kill Judge Tsarigradskaya or members of her family. We, therefore, call on the investigative bodies, part of the system of the Ministry of the Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office − but not the members of the Prosecutorial College itself − to conduct a thorough investigation of the threats against Judge Tsarigradskaya and her family, leading to the discovery of their actual perpetrators and sponsors, as well as the motivation with which they were made. The investigating authorities owe Bulgarian society the utmost publicity of the course and results of the investigative actions, given the exceptional public interest in protecting the security and independence of the judiciary, one of the three powers of the state and part of its foundations.
Judge Georgieva also normalized the use of special intelligence against judges. Thus, she creates the impression in the minds of listeners unfamiliar with legal norms that this is a commonly used and mostly legal way to monitor judges. In fact, there is evidence that unregulated eavesdropping and tapping is one of the means by which organised criminal groups exercise control over and depend on magistrates. The BHC therefore calls on the competent authorities to carry out checks on each individual case of the use of special intelligence means against a magistrate.
These attacks − against the exposure of influence peddling and against civil society − are a disgrace. What is more, they are collaborationism against the background of the hidden war against democracy and an independent judiciary, the revelations of the monstrous scale of which we have seen only recently.
The inaction − or at least the untimely and non-transparent reaction − of the responsible institutions in the face of this most serious threat to the statehood and the rule of law in Bulgaria in our new democratic history casts a shadow of doubt on the size and depth of the criminal influence and connections in the system of the three authorities. They have a (self-)debunking power. We call on the media and the Bulgarian public to sharpen their focus on this existential issue and demand transparency and accountability from the three authorities in the fight against this menace.