Supreme Magistrates of Bulgaria

The interviews were made within the information-educational campaign The Court and We of the Club Journalists Against Corruption with the support of the Strengthening of the Judiciary Project of the Agency for State Internal Control

Ivan Grigorov, President of the Supreme Court of Cassation

Mr. Grigorov, could you tell us about the role the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) plays within Bulgaria’s judicial system, and what the requirements are for a magistrate to become a judge at this highly important institution?
Bulgaria’s Supreme Court of Cassation has a 125-year-long history. Its place and role within this country’s social life are defined by the Constitution. The SCC is the high judicial instance, which deals with criminal, civil and commercial lawsuits. Besides administering justice in the above fields, the SCC is empowered by the Constitution to interpret the meaning of laws – it is the only institution which can impose its interpretation of the law on lower instances and all institutions enforcing Bulgarian legal regulations. The SCC panel consists of 82 Supreme Judges, including the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation and his three deputies. Every Supreme Judge must have all the qualities of a judge, as well as long experience in the field, much competence and knowledge of the legal system, and to be intelligent, for the cases and problems the SCC deals with are very complicated – in fact, they are the most complicated ones, or already tried by several lower instances. The SCC has the last say in such matters, and the Supreme Judge has no margin for errors.

What is your reaction to the reproaches, leveled at Bulgaria’s judicial system by foreign observers and the Bulgarian public, implying that legal proceedings here are way too lengthy, and that the system remains non-transparent and unreformed?
I do not think that our judicial system, especially the courts of law, and in particular the Supreme Court of Cassation is one of the most unreformed systems. Quite the contrary – our friends from Western Europe and the USA appreciate the progress we are making. Bulgaria’s Supreme Court of Cassation is a member of the EU Network of Supreme Courts of Justice, though as an observer at this stage, and it undertakes various international activities. Our European colleagues opine that Bulgaria’s Supreme Court of Cassation maintains considerably high standards. The lengthiness of the trials is a real problem, which burdens not only the people, who recourse to court, but the judges as well. The situation at the Supreme Court is slightly different – proceedings take less time and are not stayed, but there are still some cases on hold, due to the bar’s inability to handle the great bulk of industrial and civil suits, which are referred to it every year. Generally speaking, the staying of proceedings and the lengthiness of the process are problems, faced by all judicial systems, including the modern ones. There are indeed serious problems to do especially with some criminal cases and most civil suits, where legislation is still ineffective. However, this is the fault of the politicians rather than the magistrates, as the laws in question allow such procedure opportunities, that staying the proceedings is the only option. For instance, sick leave or the absence of one defendant out of five or six, involved in the same case as accomplices – if only one is not present, the hearing cannot begin. These things depend solely on our lawmakers. I think that in this line, the Bulgarian MPs and the Cabinet, which brings part of the draft bills before Parliament, are responsible to society and the Court for, despite the great number of ideas we have come up with in order to optimize our legislation as regards putting an end to the unscrupulous staying of proceedings by lawyers and experts, we still do not receive any political support. We have put forward many draft bills, each amending a mere couple of provisions in the procedure acts in question, but it has all been like a voice crying in the wilderness.

Are you talking about minor amendments, which would considerably facilitate the work of the court and make it more efficient?
Yes, of course. For instance, we think that when a well-to-do defendant hires up to three or four lawyers, it must be possible for the hearing to begin if one of them is not present in the courtroom: the absence of one does not in any way violate the client’s right of defense. According to US legislation, American judges are not to stay proceedings, unlike their Bulgarian colleagues, but this fact has nothing to do with the judges themselves, as every one of them wants the case to be closed as soon as possible: if a case is given to a certain judge or panel, it will remain their responsibility, and staying the proceedings several times does not mean that meanwhile they will not be given new cases, which will start heaping up. Every judge therefore would rather close the case in no more than a couple of sessions, lest he or she is swamped with work.

How many cases have been referred to, let us say, the Supreme Court of Cassation, and how many of them have been closed already?
In fact, all cases that come to court are settled at a single session and decisions are made duly. According to the annual reports of my colleagues, every judge decides between 200 and 350 cases a year, depending on the bar he or she belongs to. The judges, dealing with civil suits are the busiest, followed by those, working on criminal and commercial cases. This is an incomprehensible fact to our colleagues presiding at the European network of which we are members. They simply cannot believe that a Bulgarian Supreme Judge can decide some 200 cases a year as a member of a three-man panel, and also participate in the hearing of another 600 to 700 cases a year, one-third of which are prepared personally by him. This is a workload, unheard of anywhere in the civilized world.

Do you think that the much-discussed negative image of Court is due to the fact that people are not given enough information as to how certain decision are made and why some defendants are acquitted in cases of social importance?
I do not think that the image of Court is so negative. In no way is the image of our politicians, executive authorities and businessmen any better than the Court’s. There will always be people, unsatisfied with Court – every time a judge comes up with a decision someone is unhappy, but the entire blame should not be put on Court. Granted, we have our weak points and sometimes make mistakes, but they are generally not very grave, as every case in Court is heard by several instances. This is a fact to pay heed to, even though the principle of three-instance proceeding makes our work harder and lengthier. It is an effective approach for if one instance makes a mistake chances are that the higher instance will correct it, whereas in real life – politics, medicine and many other fields – the mistake may be non-rectifiable. Every judge may err, but there is constitutional legislative control to put things right most of the time. Society must be more sympathetic to the heavy burden on the shoulders of judges, to their extreme work-load and responsibility. The media themselves are biased against Court, and if a journalist ever speaks highly of us, it is an exception. The situation at the Supreme Court of Cassation is not so grave – after all, it does an enormous load of work.

What is the way to strengthen Bulgaria’s judiciary system?
I think that our justice system is quite stable. The Supreme Court of Cassation has a 125-year0long history and has reached a good European level. What we need to do is implement all the changes which would lead to a faster, more effective and more transparent jurisdiction. We will present the judicial acts precisely and in unison with the law, but what people do not like is the staying of the proceedings and the lengthiness of the process. This must be changed, and the only way to do it is through Bulgaria’s politicians.