According to an analysis by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, the text of the parliament’s rules of procedure, according to which the chief prosecutor must report to the National Assembly at least every three months, is unconstitutional. And he will be attacked in front of the Constitutional Court
Deputies from the DB and IBGNI were ready to submit a declaration condemning Ivan Geshev’s non-appearance in parliament and announcing that he was violating the constitution. This, in turn, could be a reason to ask the SJC to remove him again
Magistrates commented that not only the way in which the deputies accustom Geshev every day is insulting, but apparently the MPs have decided to deal mainly only with him.
Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev is on leave and the likelihood of appearing before the legal commission tomorrow is minimal. The fact that prosecutor I1 is on paid annual leave is understood from the letters sent to the chairman of the temporary commission for police violence during the protests, lawyer Nikolay Hadjigenov.
They were signed by the Deputy Prosecutor General, not personally by Ivan Geshev.
Earlier today, just three hours after heading the constitutional and legal commission, its chairman, Andrei Mihailov, was the next to send a letter to the chief prosecutor. In it, he asked Ivan Geshev to go to a meeting of the commission tomorrow to discuss the activities of the prosecution and investigative bodies in connection with the police violence from last summer.
The day before, the parliament requested that the chief prosecutor submit a report on the activities of the prosecutor’s office in connection with the police violence during the protests by August 20, that is, by Friday.
Apparently, in their desire to summon Geshev to parliament at any cost and, if he does not do so, to attack him with a request for removal, the MPs themselves are in contradiction, magistrates commented.
On the one hand, he must appear before the legal committee tomorrow, and on the other hand, he must write a report by Friday. How does this happen, a lawyer wonders.
Geshev himself explained in a statement to BTA on Monday that a hearing of the chief prosecutor in specific cases was a violation of the principle of separation of powers. In addition, there is a long-standing practice of the Constitutional Court, which does not allow parliamentary control over the work of magistrates in specific cases.
He also explained that by law he has no right to be interested in and collect information on cases.
Lawyers reminded that there is a decision of the Constitutional Court from 2017, which precisely states that MPs have no right to request information for investigations.
According to an analysis by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Article 24 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure is unconstitutional and is very likely to be attacked before the Constitutional Court.
The text in question states that at least every three months a discussion is held in the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs with the participation of the Prosecutor General regarding the application of the law and the activities of the prosecution and investigative bodies, including legislative changes, resource security, difficulties related to the implementation of the functions of these bodies, results in the fight against crime, incl. corruption, interaction with investigative bodies.
At the same time, parliamentary sources said that MPs from “Democratic Bulgaria” and “Stand up BG! We are coming” were ready to submit a declaration condemning Geshev’s behavior if he did not go to parliament and accuse him of violates the constitution. This, in turn, could be an occasion for the Minister of Justice to again submit a request to the SJC for the removal of the Prosecutor General.
On this issue, however, there is already a question to the Constitutional Court that the Minister could request the early release of the Prosecutor General.
“This behavior of the MPs is insulting. They have apparently set a goal to deal only with Geshev every day and look for all sorts of ways to accuse him of violating the country’s constitution and laws and on this basis to demand his removal,” commented a senior magistrate.
– .
