The judicial reform was a top priority of the politicians in power from the Reformist bloc in the Borissov 2 government. Also, Brussels still implements a mechanism for monitoring Bulgaria and Romania under the chapter "Justice and Home Affairs". In January this year, with a large parliamentary majority, an updated strategy for judicial reforms was adopted. Its beginning was supposed to be placed with the proposed changes to the underlying law of the country. In summer, however, the proposed constitutional changes did not meet the necessary support and reached the so-called "historic compromise." There were three issues of consensus: the separation of the Supreme Judiciary Council (SJC) into two colleges, direct election of the magistrate quota in the SJC and strengthening the powers of the inspectorate. In September with the impressive support of 184 MPs, the amendments to the Constitution were adopted at first reading. Thus MPs started working on a "fast track" without waiting between two and four months until the second round of voting.

On Wednesday, in the plenary hall, at second reading the division was approved of the SJC into two colleges – of judges and prosecutors. The Judges' Association will have one more member, and will include 14 members - six elected directly by judges, six - by the National Assembly and the two presidents of the SCC (Supreme Court of Cassation) and the SAC (Supreme Administrative Court). The prosecutors’ college will have 11 members - six from the professional quota and five elected by parliament. 204 deputies, headed by GERB, adopted the proposal for a college of prosecutors of the cabinet-supporting ABC party. So the "historic compromise" of the summer was obliterated. Then 180 MPs signed under the decision that the quotas in this college are distributed equally. Six professionals - prosecutors and an investigator and six elected by parliament. On Wednesday, the professionals remained six but those elected by parliament were five. Thus the prosecution got full control over their decisions. "The historic compromise" envisaged the independence of judges to be guaranteed by reducing the political quota in their college at the SJC, but it foresaw a slight majority of the parliamentary quota so that a minimum democratic accountability on the Chief Prosecutor could be introduced. According to Ivanka Ivanova, Director of the legal program at the Open Society Institute, "with the prosecutorial college the Chief Prosecutor and representatives of prosecution and investigators who are his subordinates by law become a majority. A college was set up where "prosecutor №1" turns out to be the main decision-making body."

Ivanka Ivanova also reported a problem with the quota for judges:

"Judges' independence is not a value of the same rank as the institutional independence of the prosecution. It affects greatly the essential understanding of whether Bulgaria is a country with the rule of law or not. In the EU and globally there are many democratic countries with supremacy of the law and in their case the prosecutors’ office is subordinate to the executive. But there is no country with the rule of law where the court is subject to some kind of subordination. The second problem is that with the transfer of one member to the college of judges we violate the only known European standard in the field. At the level of the Council of Europe there is no common reference standard how the authorities in charge of the appointment of prosecutors in the Member States should look like, but there is a certain standard of how the authorities appointing judges should look like. It is expressed in a recommendation of the Consultative Council of European Judges, which states that such a body should be composed primarily of judges who are elected by their own guild. In Wednesday's vote, it turned out that the judges who will be elected are not a majority and so we do not comply fully with the established European standards."

The amendments to the Constitution adopted on Wednesday are not a form of judicial reform, not even its beginning. They will not make the judiciary more independent of the symbiosis between economic and political interests, by which is has now been pervaded. In fact, the current Supreme Judicial Council will remain in the same composition until 2017, when its mandate expires. Following the adoption of the changes and the separation of the judicial council, the members of the judicial system will be allocated among several colleges.

On Wednesday in plenary hall after the priority given to the prosecution in the prosecutorial college, the Minister of Justice Hristo Ivanov announced from the rostrum the decision on his resignation:

"With this vote an important and symbolic step was made towards strengthening the suspicion that in Bulgaria we talk more and more about the supremacy of the Chief Prosecutor. Therefore, with great relief, I can announce that I will no longer exercise the powers of the Minister of Justice and today I will take all the necessary steps from my withdrawal from this post.”

Minister Ivanov did not wait for the end of the voting of the changes, but the Prime Minister waited for him to approve the end of his ministerial days. Hristo Ivanov’s star emerged on the political horizon in August 2014 when he was elected deputy prime minister and justice minister in the Bliznashki cabinet. After the parliamentary elections he remained on the post of justice minister in the Borissov 2 cabinet. Hristo Ivanov was one of the most attacked ministers over the incessant scandals in the judiciary. He came to office promising to resign if the constitutional changes do not go.

Immediately after his resignation, the co-chairman of the Reformist Bloc Radan Kanev announced that he would go into opposition but specified that only spoke in his own name. Kanev also announced that the position of Democrats for Strong Bulgaria and the other parties of the Reformist Bloc would be announced later when parties take the political decision. Kanev added that he participated in the ruling coalition so far only in the name of the successful enforcement of the judicial reform.

"I never bluff, so from this point the government of Mr. Borisov cannot count on my support as a Bulgarian MP. We gave our colleagues from GERB another opportunity - to show certain solidarity with their own signature, not with us. The trust on my part, again speaking personally, is completely lost."

The vote of the constitutional changes causes a concussion in the top of the government and political parties. Changes that will determine the Bulgarian politics and our lives for a long time to come. What’s the opinion of political analyst Dimitar Ganev:

"Radan Kanev’s switch into opposition does not mean that the Reformist Bloc will stop supporting the government. But it is possible that the RB will split up within days. Ministers from the political party of Deputy Prime Minister Meglena Kuneva, she herself and Bozidar Lukarski from the Union of Democratic Forces can remain part of this government. Even if the RB goes into opposition, the stability of the government and early elections are not on the agenda. There are many opportunities within this Parliament to reach majority in voting”.

English Rossitsa Petcova