February 11, 2003

Mr. Vladislav Slavov, Chair, Supreme Administrative Court

Honorable Ministers, Your Excellencies, Members of Parliament, colleagues and guests! Coalition 2000 is an initiative of Bulgarian non-governmental organizations launched in the spring of 1997 to limit corruption in Bulgarian society through partnership between state institutions, non-governmental organizations, and private individuals. Your presence here today comes to confirm the importance of this cooperation and interaction between the public and private sectors aimed at countering corruption.

The work of Coalition 2000 is a successful model of such collaboration involving analysis of the corruption situation in this country, monitoring of corrupt practices, initiation of specific measures and elaboration of proposals aimed at limiting corruption in both the short and long term. Let me say at once that in this respect the capacity of non-governmental organizations is not used adequately. In the sphere of law alone there are at least a dozen such organizations whose potential could indeed be used far more. But in this respect the initiative needs to come from state institutions, too, because their activity more or less depends on funding and these organizations generally remain inoperative unless they receive aid from international sponsors.

You have before you the latest Coalition 2000 report and in my opinion it deserves a favorable evaluation. I suppose most of you haven't had the time to acquaint yourselves with it; it is quite detailed, thorough, building on solid facts and extensive information. I would specifically like to note the sections on creating a legal and institutional environment discouraging corruption and on the anti-corruption dimensions of the judicial reform. The individual sections of the report present relatively exhaustively the most sensitive spheres susceptible to corruption - public administration and administrative services, unregulated lobbying and the financing of political parties, the different structural units of the judiciary, the court administration, law enforcement, privatization and post-privatization control, public procurement, customs and fiscal control, etc.

Based on analyses, surveys, and studies of these individual spheres the report features interesting and feasible proposals that are sure to stimulate further discussion.

I would like to note the fact that the report for the first time highlights the need to enhance the legislative process as a whole, the need for capacity-building efforts in this sphere. All too often the poor quality of the legislation, the non-compliance of by-laws and regulations with the provisions of the very laws that necessitate their adoption, as well as the use of the tacit rejection principle, leave more room for subjective judgment, which in turn is conducive to corruption.
As a representative of the judiciary I would like to consider more closely the section that specifically concerns the operation of the judiciary.

First of all, let me stress something that was noted by Ms. Yordanova as well, the fact that the lack of a comprehensive conception of the reform and of consensus between the separate branches of power and among the various divisions of the judiciary itself on the long-term priorities of the reform lead to fragmentation of the changes, inconsistent implementation, and even obstruction, of the reforms. It is on these grounds that the Regular Report of the European Commission for 2002 states that "despite the progress of the reforms, the judicial system remains ineffective, with hardly any tangible changes in its operation". Let me share an idea at this point, something that came up in a conversation with a colleague just before the conference started today - in connection with the numerous suggestions and comments on possible changes in the judicial system that have been advanced in the past few months, it seems to me that we should consider whether an NGO, or possibly several NGOs, could perhaps sum up these proposals and put forth at a round table the basic problems that need to be discussed. This would facilitate the work of both the National Assembly and the executive in terms of our common concern at the present time - seeking some effective change in the field of the judiciary.

Among the chief criticisms advanced in the report regarding the operation of the judiciary, and I would extend that to include the executive, is the lack of a good statistical system to help keep track of the performance of each of the bodies of the judiciary and the executive alike, in the fight against corruption, for example. This is a most important issue since it has immediate implications for the corruption-related problems.

In this context, perhaps we should yet again consider the fact that we have been talking about a uniform record-keeping methodology concerning crime ever since 1990 but such a methodology still hasn't been adopted. That is why we keep reading in the press about various closed or pending cases, related to the work of various agencies or bodies, going back and forth between the judiciary and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And it seems to me that it is very important to assign a priority to the elaboration and adoption of such an integrated information system to help fight crime. Since the beginning of the current year it is the Ministry of Justice that has taken on this commitment. In fact, this system, as required by law, should have been elaborated as early as 1996. It has been six years, the seventh year now actually, yet hardly anything has as yet been done. With such a system it would take the ordinary police officer 5 minutes to check on the person they have apprehended and see whether they need to take further action in his regard. As it is, the police and the prosecution don't find out who that person is until the third day, when they've already let him go and so a new search has to be launched.

We have every reason to feel proud of the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court elaborated and adopted a legal information system that is unique in Europe. I only wish our representatives of the executive in the European Union would promote it more, because it hasn't been mentioned in the report. This unique legal information system, operating at the Supreme Administrative Court for the fifth year already, is widely accessible through the Internet so each case can be followed from the very filing of the complaint to the final ruling. It is the kind of transparency we would welcome in the operation of all bodies and authorities. It is a precondition for truly counteracting corruption.

In this connection I would like to say that the absence of such a working integrated information system to fight crime might be related to the reluctance of certain bodies to become part of this system. It does in fact encompass bodies of all three branches of power and its main purpose is to fight crime and corruption. And I don't think it will be put in place this year either because, at least as far as I know, no such funds are provided for in the budget of the Ministry of Justice. At this point we should probably mention that the amendments to the Law on the Judiciary that were adopted and partly declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court include many positive elements, the adoption of which would be most welcome - these are the integrated information system, the court police, the national institute for professional training of magistrates, the creation of new structures within the system or new positions such as the court assistants at the supreme courts. In fact, they are hardly likely to be implemented this year even though the law was passed in July 2002. Neither the judiciary nor the Ministry of Justice has allocated funds for such new structures. And that's really a pity!

And finally, I would like to say a few words about the rather topical problem of judicial control of administrative acts. As President of the Supreme Administrative Court it is only normal for me to bring up the subject. There has emerged an alarming tendency. It began with the Law on Financial Supervision Commissions, which was adopted regardless of the President's veto. The latest amendments to the Law on Privatization and Post-privatization Control also partly exclude judicial control. And presently a media law is being discussed, which also contains provisions limiting judicial control. And I ask myself, what is actually going on? Let me mention jus a few things for your consideration. Two weeks ago in this very room the activity report was approved under a program financed by UNDP - and I take the opportunity to thank them for the funds granted - and the British Government, which program, by the way, was initiated upon request of the Bulgarian Government. It concerned the development of administrative law in Bulgaria and, based on the control and transparency in the operation of the courts, implied the corresponding conduct in the field of the administration, and not just at the top level, but also on the mid-, local, and municipal levels. Within very short delays this program actually achieved very good results. In fact it involves codification of administrative law and the possible establishment of regional administrative courts as an independent system of administrative courts in the country similarly to the model found in all countries from the European Union. So, two weeks ago, in this room, there was hardly any representation of either the Council of Ministers or the National Assembly. Nevertheless, the program will carry on its work and hopefully in the near future, since we already have a project approved for financing under PHARE, we will develop an administrative code summing up or incorporating the relevant legislation. We will also put forth the proposal about the establishment of administrative courts and I hope that in the mean time this attitude of the executive to judicial control will change.

Just for your information, I would like to mention a conference that took place on October 7th and 8th last year in Strasbourg under a Council of Europe program. The subject of the conference was "The Possibility and Scope of the Judicial Control of Administrative Decisions" and 44 countries from the Council of Europe were represented (out of a total of 45 member countries at the present time). This conference of the presidents of the supreme administrative courts adopted conclusions formulated in 13 articles. Let me quote the first two: 1. Judicial review of administrative action is an essential element of the rule of law and human rights, which are concepts that are central to the legal orders of Council of Europe member States. 2. All administrative acts should be subject to judicial review. This review applies to the exercise of discretionary power." Please note that this is not allowed in Bulgaria where judicial control only applies to conformity with the law.

I suppose these conclusions will soon be introduced in the Council of Ministers and will probably become mandatory for Bulgaria. Such is the tendency in administrative or judicial control of administrative acts and I hope that the MPs present here today will not allow any further restriction of judicial control through changes in the legislation which I consider anti-constitutional.

Thank you for your attention.