In society based on the rule of law , the lawyer has a special role.

From January the 11th, monday, in bTV's air the most authentic reality series is coming back "True stories: Divorces".

Resonance Season 2.23

Metropolitan Bar will elect its new leadership at the end of January.

Sofia Attorney Bar is likely going to choose its new management body earliest at the end of the year but most probably in January next year together with its General Assembly. This course of event became apparent today at the first Court hearing of the Supreme Court of Cassation related to the Sofia Attorney Bar elections.

The vote for the management body of the Sofia Attorney Bar took place at a General meeting on 24th of January and 1st of February 2015. Lawyer Ivailo Danov was the elected Chairman on a runoff but the election of all management body members was appealed on 20th of February 2015. The Supreme Administrative Court canceled it. Thus the current Chairman Peter Kitanov kept his role even with expired term and new vote is expected to be scheduled in the coming couple of months.

One of the lawyers who submitted the court appeal to the Supreme Attorney Council which led to the cancelation of the vote , lawyer Raina Avramova – Elandzhieva, contests the silence denial of the Supreme Administrative Court to address a key point in her appeal.

She claims that the key grounds for the vote results cancelation which she and Peter Kitanov point out in their mutual appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court is left unaddressed by the Supreme body of the Bar.

“In accordance with article 82 paragraph 5 3A The General Assembly takes the decision that the Bar Council consists of 15 members, a chairman and six back-up members or 22 members in total. The Electoral Commission though states that the vote will be for 14 regular and 6 back-up members. In this way it overrules on its own a decision by the General Assembly.” Claims lawyer Elandzhieva.

She points out in her appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation that the same mistake was done during the election of the Supervisory Board. ”The General Assembly has taken the decision to increase the number of the Supervisory Board members from 5 to 7 but instead of this the Electoral Commission announced that announced that the vote was fpr 5 regular and 2 back-up members.” Explained lawyer Elandzhieva.

In her view if the Supreme Court of Cassation does not take a stand on this topic there is a risk that the next vote for the management body of the Sofia Attorney Bar to be challenged and the General Assembly’s decision on the number of the members of its bodies not to be respected again.

“The appeal is not an end in itself. If we spend Attorney Bar’s money on elections let it be lawful.” explained lawyer Elandzhieva in “Legal World”.

And lawyer Todor Philipov who represents her in front of the Supreme Court of Cassation added: “We have a great paradox in place here – on the 24th of February the General Assembly of the Sofia Attorney Bar determines with a decision the numbers of the members of its management bodies and then the Electoral Commission does a flagrant violation of the law replacing the vote of the Sofia attorneys and actually rewrites the law itself. In the bulletin it is written that the vote is for 5 regular and 2 back-up members while in the Attorney Act does not provision at all the appointment of back-up members in the Supervisory Board.”

Today the hearing in the Supreme Court of Cassation with a chairman Stoil Sotirov and members Vesselka Ilieva, and Zoiya Atanasova had to be postponed. Lawyer Elandzhieva and lawyer Philipov insisted that the Court obligates the Supreme Administrative Court to provide an officially certified copy of the protocols of the General Assembly meeting on 24th of February. The protocol is need in order to validate the number of the members of the management bodies of the Attorney Bar which was voted.

The Court respected this request and the chairman Stoil Sotirov suggested the next hearing to be scheduled for 15th of June. Lawyer Elandzhieva though stated that she should travel abroad and has some health issues and so a second date was fixed – 14th of September and 15th of September was left as aback-up date in case the Supreme Administrative Court provides the protocols by then the parties can attend a hearing.

At the hearing though it became apparent that the case will be most probably revisited on the 14th of September. If the hearing takes place and is sufficient for a decision to be taken it will be issued earliest in October or November. The new election must be schedule in two months’ time after the Court’s decision is announced. The Attorney Act (article 109) does not allow a bigger delay. According some lawyers though it will be inappropriate the Bar to be called in December in order to vote for management bodies and then to be called again at the end of January 2016 in order to vote for a new General Assembly.

On today’s hearing the chairman of the Supreme Bar Council did not show up.

The lawyers’ advice has been equated to a usual mail – box. Lawyer Avramova, you won 130 votes for a regular and 210 votes for a back-up Attorney Bar Council member on 25th of January 2015. The on the runoff on the 1st of February 2015 you won only 87 votes for a regular and 127 votes for a delegate member of the Council. Is this due to a crash of the trust in your personality, is it some mathematic mystery or is it a result of some conspiracy plan just over a week? I can say that it is hardly due to a crash in the trust in my personality but indeed the difference in the numbers cause some perplexity and make your question very reasonable. On the other hand in the mathematics there are no mysteries so the only valid option for me are the conspiracy games which convulse the Sofia Attorney Bar since a long time and which influence the management of all Attorney Bars in the country.

Who and why will be interested you not to get a regular membership in the Sofia Attorney Bar Council as well as a delate one so that you cannot represent the Sofia Attorney Bar at the General Assembly meeting of the Bulgarian Attorney Bar?

It is very hard to give a one-way answer to this. I would not like to believe that my sole personality is the only reason for it. I’d rather say that I notice the principle “Divide and Rule” directly reflected in the result of the votes held on 25th of January and 1st of February this year. It is not a secret in our guild that I strongly support the management of my colleague Petar Kitanov (the current chairman of Sofia Attorney Bar) and I share the ideas of the Bar Association “Guarantors for change” created by him at the time of the previous elections. But this is hardly the reason. Among these people there are good professionals who demonstrate the will to work on the Bar’s issues. I find a lot of touch points with them related to the problems in front of the Bar and the good work of the current Attorney Bar Council which is a very significant and indicative fact.

Is this what provoked you to put an appeal against the elections of Sofia Attorney Bar management bodies and delegates of the General Assembly of the lawyers in the country?

Of course! The same as all my colleagues I am concerned about the development of the Bar and it is not all the same for me how it will be managed and how its management bodies and the delegates will be elected. It is true that the Law is “a door in the field” but aren’t we exactly the people whose profession demands integrity and accuracy on first place. It is unacceptable and even morally objectionable the laws to be broken by the people who have taken an oath to observe them.

What you and your followers’ exclusion from participation will save to the General Assembly of the Attorney Bar?

Interesting question. I would like to believe that the Supreme Bar Council will not allow this to happen again. The General Assembly of the attorneys is the most important forum of the lawyers in the country. The topics discussed there and the decisions which the General Assembly takes determine the attitude of the state and the international institutions, association and formations towards the lawyers community of Bulgaria. What will be saved? The search for an answer to pressing problems ny the Supreme Bar Council will be saved but let’s not rush ahead and spell a bad omen.

What is the role of the regional Attorney Bars given that they are just “mail-boxes” when it comes to voting for Sofia Attorney Bar members and also when it comes to the exam and admission which is entirely handled by the Supreme Bar Council? Respectively the admission taxes do not remain in the budget of every Bar. What is as they say “the benefit of the use of it” and isn’t in this case the General Assembly meeting of the Bulgaria Attorney Bar useless?

It seems that you have the answer into your question. I will give two examples stated in my appeal to the Supreme Bar Council which illustrate excellently the role of the regional Bars and let everyone draw their own conclusion.

From the very beginning the preparation, the conduct and the voting during the elections on 25th of January and 1st of February 2015 have been lawless because the voting lists have been created on the basis of the public register maintained by the Supreme Bar Council and not on the basis of the one created and maintained by the Sofia Attorney Bar which is required in accordance with the Attorney Act article 147, and Ordinance N5 for the Supreme Bar Council article 1 paragraph 2, item 1-5. In this sense the Supreme Bar Council has overruled the authority of the Sofia Attorney Bar which allows and creates pre-requisites for manipulation of the number of the voters, the total number of votes and the quorum which is crucial for the results of the performed elections. According to the established practice of the Supreme Bar Council regarding the maintenance of its register as stipulated in Ordinance N3/ 29/10/2014 the Bar has just the role of a mail-box as far as the Bar Councils are concerned and it just provides information about the software product to the Supreme Bar Council and its register in accordance with article 1 of Ordinance 3 of the Bar. In this way the Bar Councils are deprived of one of their key powers. In fact in this way they do not have direct access to or have inaccurate list of the practicing lawyers and thus the register owner has the chance to provide inaccurate information about the number of the lawyers and then misleading or inaccurate number of the General Assembly members in presence which corrupts the whole election process. For the period 2012 – 2015 all young lawyers who have been admitted and included in the voting lists for additional elections for management bodies of the Sofia Attorney Bar and for delegates in the General Assembly which took place on the 1st of February 2015 have taken an exam assessed by one incompetent body as is the Supreme Bar Council in this case. As a result of all this their vote is not legitimate and thus the whole election.

Why do you claim that the Supreme Bar Council is not the right body which to lead the exam for admission of the lawyers in Bulgaria?

According to article 4, paragraph 4 of the Attorney Act a necessary positive prerequisite for an individual to sit for exam for junior lawyer or for lawyer is that the exam is held and assessed by the body stipulated in article 89 paragraph 3 of the same Act which is the Sofia Bar as well as any other Regional Bar to which the candidate may apply. But via Ordinance N2 the Supreme Bar Council turned the Bars into simple distribution mailboxes which collect the applications and passes them to it. According to article 8 paragraph 1 and 2 3A the Supreme Bar Council has only the power to determine the way the exams will be conducted but not to carry the exams themselves.

What do you expect the Supreme Bar Council to do with your claims?

As a lawyer with 15 years of experience I would like to believe that the Supreme Bar Council will apply the rule of law. My personal professional opinion is that in case of significant law violations of the law there is just one right decision with no flavors. And it is to annul the elections of management bodies of the Sofia Attorney Bar as well as for delegates in the National Bar General Assembly.

Is there a risk that the scenario not to say the scandal of 2012 will be repeated when the management of the Bar was selected without the participation of the Sofia lawyers?

I hope that this bitter experience from the General Assembly meeting held in 2012 is indicative enough for the Supreme Bar Council that there is a real risk this scenario to repeat again. At that time the Sofia Bar did not manage to conduct a lawful vote for General Assembly delegate of the Bar. The elections were held in an atmosphere full of violation and breaches which led to the vote annulation. The Sofia Bar requested a postponement of the General Assembly meeting in order to have some time to hold new legitimate elections for new delegates. At the General Assembly meeting though this request deposited by the Varna lawyer Orlin Simeonov was not take to a vote due to the agreement that the date of the General Assembly meeting is fix by the law – the last Saturday and Sunday of February – and could not be changed. And thus on 26th of February 2012 Ralitsa Negentsova was selected as a chairman of the Supreme Bar Council supported by 109 votes as well as the members of the other management bodies without the voting and the participation of the Sofia lawyers which are half of the law community in the country.

Then the Supreme Court put an order regardless of the fact that the Supreme Bar Council was claiming that its decision regarding the elections of General Assembly delegates could not be a subject of judicial review.

Yes, the Supreme Court jury – the Chairman Lazar Gruev and judges Mitova and Temev canceled the vote for Bar management bodies. The justification for this action was that the deprivation of the Bar of the ability to choose the delegates leads to a deprivation of each single lawyer of the right to take part and to take a stand about the work of the Bar management bodies and thus to exercise their subjective voting right.

Is it possible the Supreme Bar Council to repeat this scenario again given that they have already gone through it and there is a legal practice in place?

This will be validated by their ruling on the appeal regarding the elections conducted on 24 – 25 January and 1st of February for Bar management bodies and General Assembly delegates of the lawyer community of the country.

And while we are waiting for the outcome, how do you see the role of the Bar if any in the never ending topic regarding the reform of our judiciary system?

The Bar has always had a very important role in our judiciary system but in my view there is still a lot to done in order it to play it with dignity. I hope that the Bar will be given this chance regardless of all infightings and external interests.