In brief
At the General Assembly of Judges in Sofia, Judge Krasimir Mazgalov announced his candidacy for the Supreme Judicial Council’s judges’ professional quota and pledged to act as a direct representative of the judiciary. He highlighted priorities such as defending judicial independence, improving workload measurement, and enhancing transparency in career development and personnel selection. While his platform is confirmed by his statements, its adoption within the Council remains to be seen.
In Sofia on Saturday, Judge Krasimir Mazgalov, a judge at the Sofia City Court, announced his candidacy for the Supreme Judicial Council’s judges’ professional quota and vowed to act as a direct representative of the judicial community if elected.
Speaking at the General Assembly of Judges, Mazgalov said he had repeatedly criticized actions and inaction on the part of the Supreme Judicial Council, but that criticism should be coupled with concrete action and responsibility for resolving identified problems.
He identified maintaining regular contact with sanctioned magistrates as his main commitment, arguing that it would allow timely identification of problems and development of solutions within the judicial system.
His priorities, according to the BTA report, include defending the independence and standing of the judiciary, overcoming divisions within the magistrates’ community, ensuring a fair distribution of workload, providing transparent career development and predictable disciplinary practice, and holding judges accountable for misconduct.
Regarding personnel policy, Mazgalov emphasized objective appraisals, clear criteria for professional development, and greater transparency in selecting administrative heads. He proposed drawing up specific profiles for leadership positions, publishing the criteria for assessing candidates in advance, and giving greater weight to the opinions of judges’ general assemblies.
In the same vein, he called for workload to be measured in a meaningful way, taking into account not only the number of cases but also their factual and legal complexity, as well as the quality and timeliness of judges’ work.
