Open Letter to the Venice Commission regarding the appointment of Desislava Atanassova as a member

Dear Madam President,

Honourable Members of the Commission,

On Monday, 3 February 2025, the Bulgarian media reported that, without prior public announcement, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria appointed Ms Desislava Atanassova, a recently serving member of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, as a member of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). Additionally, another recently appointed Bulgarian constitutional judge, Mr Borislav Belazelkov, was named as a substitute member. The decision of the Council of Ministers is taken without observing any procedure to the matter and there is no information on any prior consultations within the government or the legal experts’ community. The decision is not supported by any reasoning. 

The next day, lawyers from the city of Plovdiv announced their intention to organise a protest against Ms Atanassova’s appointment, while other representatives of the legal profession and the academic community expressed similar concerns in interviews and on social media.

We, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, have been monitoring the state of access to justice and the independence of the judiciary as a key to respect and protection of human rights in Bulgaria for almost fifteen years. Part of this work has included monitoring the implementation of key European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments in Kolevi v. Bulgaria (no. 1108/02), Miroslava Todorova c. Bulgarie (40072/13) and Pengezov c. Bulgarie (no. 66292/14). These judgments, together with numerous Venice Commission opinions on various Bulgarian legislative proposals over recent decades, remain central to the ongoing but incomplete reform of the Bulgarian judiciary. A critical aspect of this reform is ensuring the accountability of the Chief Prosecutor, including the creation of an independent mechanism for investigating allegations of criminal conduct against them.

Before becoming a constitutional judge, Ms Atanassova was a Member of Parliament from the GERB party (a member of the European People’s Party), which has been in power for most of the time since 2009. GERB has participated in five governments, including the current one, with its leader, Boyko Borissov, serving as Prime Minister in three of them. The Ministers of Justice in all these administrations, as well as the parliamentary appointees to the Supreme Judicial Council and the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council, were elected with the participation and political support of GERB MPs.

Despite these years in power, the above-mentioned ECtHR judgments remain unimplemented. In the case of Kolevi v. Bulgaria, even the statute of limitations for prosecution has expired. Furthermore, most of the Ministers of Justice from these governments, along with many members of the Legal Affairs Committees in Parliament, are not recognised by Bulgarian society as advocates for meaningful judicial reform. On the contrary, their actions and votes in Parliament have consistently delayed or obstructed efforts to establish an independent investigative body for the Chief Prosecutor or to introduce a judicial majority elected by their peers within the Supreme Judicial Council.

Ms Atanassova has been a Member of Parliament since GERB first entered Parliament in 2009. She also served as Minister of Health (2012–2013). Her prior legal experience is limited to working as a legal adviser in a psychiatric dispensary and a hospital. She meets the constitutional criteria for legal experience under Article 147(3) of Bulgaria’s Constitution solely due to a provision, retained in parliamentary rules since the 1990s, which allows time served as an MP to count towards legal experience. In the current Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, this provision is found in Article 130, which states: “The time during which Members of the National Assembly perform their functions shall be counted as the length of service in their speciality, respectively as the length of service in the position they held before their election”. Beyond her tenure in Parliament, Ms Atanasova has no known involvement in activities relevant to the mandate of the Venice Commission. Her service on the Constitutional Court has not been particularly distinguished to date. Furthermore, we are unaware of any publications by her in constitutional law, human rights, or any other branch of law.

Given these facts, while Ms Atanassova is undeniably an experienced participant in democratic institutions such as the Bulgarian Parliament, we share concerns regarding her status as an independent expert and her contribution to the enhancement of law, as required under Article 2 of the Revised Statute of the European Commission for Democracy through Law. Her appointment to the Commission casts a shadow on the integrity of this body, which consists of the most distinguished experts in Europe.

We strongly value the Venice Commission’s authoritative role in supporting meaningful and effective judicial reform in Bulgaria. In this regard, we urge the Commission to maintain an active dialogue with Bulgarian civil society and the academic community, ensuring that assessments of critical issues within the Bulgarian judiciary reflect pluralism and a diversity of perspectives.

Sincerely,

Adela Katchaounova

Radoslav Stoyanov