- Deputies, magistrates and lawyers they discuss it for an hour “in the dark”
- The legal committee missed it to tell about the live broadcast at the beginning
The draft anti-corruption law is deliberately imperfect. The goal is not prevention, but confiscation of property. It is not accidentally hidden inside. As in “Leonardo’s code”, we guess and seek to understand why the project is so bad.
The critical statement was made by Prof. Maria Slavova, doctor of administrative law and university lecturer, at a public discussion of the “Anti-Mafia” bill. It was introduced by all the people’s representatives from “We continue the change” a month ago. After three failed attempts last Wednesday, it was accepted at first reading by the legal committee. Deputies from “There is such a people”, who criticize it, also voted “for”, but with the stipulation that between the two readings they will propose serious corrections.
The idea for the public discussion came from Iva Miteva from Slavi Trifonov’s party a week ago.
It was held on Tuesday, but the first hour was “in the dark”. The discussion, organized by the legal commission, was not announced on the website of the National Assembly, there was no announcement about it anywhere. It was not transmitted on the website of the parliament either. The public debate with the participation of deputies, magistrates and lawyers was found out from the “Dnevnik” website, which was the only one to broadcast it. After the media inquired as to why there was no live broadcast, around 1:00 p.m. the broadcast began on the website of the National Assembly.
The press office later explained that they had not been told to hand it over at first.
What is new in the project, which was long awaited, is the introduction of the figure of investigative inspectors, as well as the possibility for the commission to attack in court the refusals of the prosecutor’s office to initiate pre-trial proceedings. The current Commission for Combating Corruption and Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property (KPCONPI) should be divided into two – “Anti-Mafia” and for confiscation of illegal property.
“Nothing requires the adoption of a new law, because the changes are not essential,” announced Iva Miteva at the beginning of the debate. She is among his fiercest critics.
According to her, it was not clear why the anti-corruption commission would coordinate its rules with the Council of Ministers.
“The whole commission is made as a shield for the MPs and ministers and a club for everyone else”.
Iva Miteva thinks.
Prof. Maria Slavova asked if it was a coincidence that such an imperfect text was written, given that the laws of 2005, 2012 and 2018 do not work.
She also listed some of the errors in the draft, such as not recording that the commission’s acts were challenged in court.
The teacher also asked why they had gathered for a discussion given that the project had been accepted at first reading.
“Where has the rule of law gone”asked Prof. Slavova.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Krasimira Filipova noted that the question of appealing the refusals of the prosecution should be widely discussed, because “how would it be judged whether a crime is more serious or lighter and for one the refusal will be appealed , and for another – no. The prosecutor’s office is against the bill.
Yasen Todorov from the Chamber of Investigators also expressed a negative opinion.
“This is a bad compilation with a lot of ambiguities. It is a matter of much long debate whether the commission should be given investigative functions. I don’t see why there is such a rush to adopt this law by the National Assembly,” he said.
According to him, there were many disturbing texts, such as the fact that investigative inspectors were not required to have a qualification and legal experience. Several laws were intertwined – for the Ministry of the Interior, for the state employee, for the National Tax Service.
The Association of the Independent Judiciary also expressed a negative opinion.
“There is a discrepancy between the presented text and the reasons for it. The petitioners are talking about a new law, but we are seeing an almost literal repetition. There are amendments, but they are mostly technical”, according to the association.
According to them, a specialized police force was being created with the investigating inspector. And if there was a clear mechanism for the investigating police officers on how the cases were distributed, the bill did not make it clear how the reports would be distributed among the inspectors.
“There are many problems. The opinion of the people from KPCONPI, who deal with the declaration of the property, was not taken. There is an awful lot of work to be done under this law”, concluded Iva Miteva.
She added that among the people who must declare assets, the mayors of town halls are omitted.
“To my surprise, here is the judicial system. Why should judges, prosecutors and investigators be in this law, they are checked by the Inspectorate, even their declarations are different”Miteva explained.
Rositsa Kirova from GERB asked why there is this rush to adopt the law.
It is to be voted on in the first reading in the plenary hall.
–
