Prof. Georgi Petkanov Minister of Justice

Prof. Georgi Petkanov has been Minister of Justice since August 16, 2005, after a successful four-year term as minister of the interior (July 2001 – July 2005). MP from National Movement Simeon II in the 39th and 40th National Assemblies. He has worked as arbiter at the Court of Arbitration with the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, lawyer and prosecutor.

Professor of law, specialist in financial and tax law with many publications in these fields. In the period 1991-1995 he was dean of the Law Faculty and then vice rector of St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia. Head of the university Administrative and Financial Law department, deputy chairman of the Specialized Law Council with the Supreme Attestation Committee, chairman of the Union of Lawyers in Bulgaria and member of the Bureau of the International Organization of Democrat Lawyers. Editor-in-chief of Contemporary Law magazine.

Mr. Minister, you headed the Ministry of Justice after you were minister of the interior. This is doubtlessly recognition for well done work and appreciation of your personal qualities. Would you briefly say what is the summing-up after your full four-year term? What has changed in the Interior Ministry operation in view of our accession to the European Union?
Since the beginning of the transition mandate, only two are the ministers who started a second mandate – Nikolay Vasilev and I. This could be interpreted in different ways, but I personally see it as recognition.

What is my balance after the four-year term in MI? I think I have some merits, probably I also have many omissions. The merits are in different lines – building up of the preliminary investigation machinery, which will take up the investigation, a series of normative changes related to Chapter 24: “Justice and Home Affairs”, various international acts. As illustration, I will mention that when I became minister of the interior Bulgaria had 3 police attaches – in Moscow, Prague and Rome, and now we have 25. All this involves police agreements, agreements for cooperation. The confidence in the police work was 27-28%, and I left it at 53%. The drop in crime and the growth in uncovered crimes, taken together these two factors point to a positive assessment. It is a different matter that there are still grave crimes, public assassinations.

Comparing the two ministries, MI is harder. There are daily outrages, which evoke broad media interest, and this additionally burdens the interior minister. At the Ministry of Justice it is perhaps comparatively easier, but right now this is not so because there is an ongoing reform in the judiciary and the major part of it falls on the Ministry of Justice. To date we have prepared 13 bills, three of them entered parliament, the fourth is on the agenda, and the rest stand in line.

The criticisms you get from Brussels are related mainly to the reforms in the judiciary. What are the most urgent tasks facing you and the ministry with view to complying with the requirements of the European Commission?
The judiciary system is heavy, conservative, independent, and the reforms in it are very difficult. It is hard to make a reform by an administrative order, a law, a bylaw. It takes a change in the way of thinking, of thousands of people. On the other hand, there is great resistance against the normative system as such, if we take as an example the Criminal Proceedings Code. The adoption of CPC went with many discussions, objections, opposition. The judiciary reform is a hard task, but once we have started it we will complete it.

The criticisms from the EU are in five or six lines. One of them is the reform in the judiciary, the new CPC, the legal assistance act, the administrative proceedings code, which I hope will soon be reviewed in parliament. I have been minister of justice for just two months, but three laws have already been passed, one of them (CPC) being very substantial – about 500 texts. I should note the good work of the parliament, which sat day and night. It’s true there are objections, probably there will be amendments too, but the important thing is that the philosophy of the law, the principles on which it is built were observed, namely the police investigation, the supervising prosecutors, the prohibition to return lawsuits for further investigation, shorter time-lines – all these are in compliance with the needs of the Bulgarian public and the EU recommendations.

As I understand, the greater difficulty is not the coining and passing of the laws but rather the need to change people’s thinking. How will this discrepancy reflect in practice on the application of these laws? Won’t it turn out that we have them on paper but it is hard to enforce them?
It will be hard but up to some point. Two basic things are necessary. A new normative order, which we are working on at the moment and which will form the foundation. The second is the enforcement of these laws and it is much more difficult because influence has to be exerted on the minds of the people who will apply them. Every reform is painful, and involves many concussions, new features unusual for the hitherto reality and this is hard to accept.

The right to judge carries a great responsibility, which unfortunately is not inherent to some of the representatives of justice. Do you think that in future the young people, who are unprejudiced and have big ambitions, will find fulfillment in life and in the legal profession?
The young people, although they don’t have experience and practical training, have charge, foreign language skills, computer literacy, knowledge of the European law, they have an incentive to make a career. They should be counted on very much. At present, in a large part of the jurisdiction system young people predominate.

Does not the fact that many universities in Bulgaria produce legal cadres with quite different level of training create additional difficulties in the field of the jurisdiction system?
I am one of the opponents to this great number of faculties and fought against this for quite some time. The standards in Europe is to have one higher school per million population. This means that Bulgaria has exceeded these requirements, because at present there are over 40 universities in the country, which personally I think is not normal. Now their reduction is beginning. This goes for the law faculties, too. My opinion is that 3-4 such faculties are sufficient for Bulgaria. At the moment they are much more and give different training, they are not of the same standard. It is true, some not very prestigious faculty may have individual well-trained students, but they are only a few. The EU is taking a stand on this issue, too.

After 15 years of transition to democracy, at last Bulgaria has a government supported by a great parliamentary majority. Is this a sign of society’s maturity and can we achieve the democratic constitution that the EU member countries and the other developed democracies in the world have?
It is true we went through many concussions before this government was formed. The broad coalition has about 170 deputies in parliament. I think this is an impressive enough majority, which is appreciated highly in Europe and, I would think, by the Bulgarian public too. Bulgaria needs such majority today, and I dare say it means maturing of the Bulgarian democratic society. We were together with MRF in the preceding government, we know each other well. We are getting along with the lefts. It is hard to foresee how things will turn out in future, but what we see at the moment looks fine.

I will take the liberty to express an opinion on behalf of many ordinary people in Bulgaria who feel their rights in this country are not particularly well protected. What would you say on this delicate issue?
I absolutely disagree that human rights are not protected in our country. Our legislation already complies with the European. We have completed the negotiations process. The Bulgarian citizens’ rights are more or less the same as those of the European citizens. Here again, it comes to the individual’s thinking. Let’s take testimony, for example. If tomorrow someone is shot in the street, it will be very hard to find witnesses willing to testify. There is lack of sympathy. While in the European states it is not so.

Your professional career went through many stages – prosecutor, lawyer, lecturer, arbiter, politician… Which one of these areas do you like best?
I like teaching best. There is nothing like Sofia University and lecturing, which I intend to go back to one day. Politics is a specific irritant and is contagious. I strongly hope I can contribute something to our nation.