February 11, 2003

Mr. Anton Stankov, Minister of Justice, Chairman, Anti-Corruption Coordination Commission

Ladies and gentlemen, Your Excellencies! Corruption is one of the most dangerous phenomena under the conditions of transition. A particular public hazard are the corrupt practices involving as key actors magistrates and representatives of law-enforcement and control authorities. That is why we initiated legislative changes criminalizing a wide range of possible acts of corruption and of abuse of office, including organized crime as the most dangerous part of the vast zone of illegal practices.

The Government of Simeon II National Movement has made it a priority to toughen the sanctions not just against corruption-related crimes in general, but particularly in the cases involving magistrates, lawyers, or arbitration court judges. At the same time, we have been equally concerned with limiting the objective preconditions for bribery.

In this connection, it is high time we dispelled the popular assumption that corruption is a minor price that societies in transition, in particular, pay for the accelerated transformation of ownership.

In the course of our integration in NATO and the pre-accession Euro-integration processes there emerged the threat of transferring corrupt practices to the sphere of international relations and security. Therefore, the primary focus of the activity of the government commission coordinating anti-corruption efforts, which was established in early 2002 and which I have the honor of chairing, is on those very corrupt practices that impair the mechanisms of statehood, undermine our national security, and serve for the purpose of criminal redistribution of our national wealth.

The present discussion on the possibilities to enhance the institutional framework for curbing corruption advances different ideas about restructuring of existing, and creation of new, mechanisms to counter this type of crime. We should not take too lightly the risk of a misguided quest for some kind of Archimedes' lever outside the existing political system. Rather, the problems that now paralyze the individual units of the judiciary, for example, need to find a rational and publicly useful solution. Looking for solutions outside this system would only increase state bureaucracy without guarantees for enhanced efficiency.

As regards the tackling of these problems and meeting the expectations of Bulgarian society, parliament is still falling behind. I'm referring to the delay of the ombudsman law. This figure, which is a traditional institution in some European countries and which nowadays plays an important role in the exercise of civic control of the administration in almost all of the countries from the European Union, would facilitate the work of both the government commission and the specialized anti-corruption units.

I would like to point out that, in view of the great magnitude of corrupt practices, as well as the fact that their limitation calls for a change in public attitudes and perceptions, the role of civil society is extremely important. I don't think it would be an exaggeration if I say that the Ministry of Justice has managed to create a permanent mechanism for consultations and joint activity with a number of non-governmental organizations, and especially with the Center for the Study of Democracy and the other organizations within the frames of the anti-corruption initiative Coalition 2000. Our presence here today is evidence that the institutions of government and civil society realize the need for ongoing constructive partnership in the efforts to crack down on corruption and to foster a new, modern civic awareness that rejects the corruption model and upholds the rule of law.

Thank you for your attention and thank you to the organizers of this meeting!