This week, it became clear[1] that hundreds of administrative judges received stuffed rabbits upon taking office. Some may say, ‘So what? It is a harmless gesture.
However, such an act is not merely infantile. It:
- on the one hand, takes away from the judge (or at least some of the administrative judges) the human dignity and freedoms that they are called upon to protect, replacing them with a toy. Responsibility for people’s lives is turned into an irresponsible game.
- On the other hand, sends alarming signals about the culture in (at least part of) the judiciary and reveals values, attitudes, and expectations. In this case, the value demonstrated is obedience, the attitude is one of submissiveness, and the expectation is for meekness. To put it simply, the bunny is turning the idea of judicial independence into a pile of fluff and dust.
- At the same time, it humiliates the honorable magistrates who work in the judiciary, for whom the adjudication of justice is a duty, not a game.
Two days ago, the judicial panel from the Sofia Court of Appeals (SCA) demonstrated similar timidity when it recused itself (withdrew) from considering the measure of restraint imposed on Varna’s Mayor Blagomir Kotsev. In their reasons for recusal, they stated that “an unprecedented and unethical campaign against the judges” gave “the court grounds to recuse itself from hearing the case”. They mention an “unprecedented negative campaign” by websites that are “consistent in their behavior in bad faith” and “manipulate public opinion by spreading lies about the selection of the panel, the personality of the judges, and suggesting a “predetermined outcome” of the appeal proceedings”.
This is only part of the content of the motives, which by definition must explain to the parties, as well as to anyone interested in the work of the court, why they are actually recusing themselves from hearing the case. In this particular case, the reason for the withdrawal remains completely unclear. This is because the “unprecedented campaign against judges” is not one of the absolute grounds for recusal under Article 29(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), nor can it be classified as a relative ground under Article 29(2) of the CPC: “…who, due to other circumstances, may be considered biased or directly or indirectly interested in the outcome of the case”.
We would like to remind the reader that there must be objective facts that clearly indicate a conflict of interest and/or possible bias or interest on the part of the judge, rather than so-called motives based on absurd, abstract, or hypothetical arguments. This specific recusal is not only difficult to defend but also unacceptable because it contains a peculiar scolding and blaming of the media, lawyers, and the public for following and commenting on the case.
Adjudicating justice is impossible if the judge does not possess the intellectual and mental resilience that allows and empowers them to resolve a conflict objectively, without interference. Even when public interest in the conflict leads to its discussion outside the courtroom. People’s expectations for a specific outcome of a case cannot and should not be a reason for a judge or panel of judges to recuse themselves from hearing it. There will always be cases of high public interest.
However, the scale of the problem with judicial withdrawals goes far beyond the specific case. Their steadily increasing number in recent years and their concentration in certain judicial districts is a worrying trend that the IME has repeatedly[2] researched and commented on. According to data from the Electronic Public Register of Recusals (EPRR), it appears that 2025 will be another record year for the number of self-recusals. It seems that the phenomenon is gradually becoming normalized as part of judicial culture, rather than an indicator of a systemic deficit.
The striking difference between the number of recusals and withdrawals/self-recusals is also troubling, as it shows that in far fewer cases do the parties to a case consider a judge to be biased and request their removal. In most of these cases, the entries in the EPRR lack genuine reasoning. This limits the substantive value of the publicly available information but also places judges in a vulnerable position and hinders the exercise of meaningful public oversight over the mechanisms intended to ensure impartiality in the judicial process.
Possible courses of action that would limit the abuse of judicial withdrawals include:
- An in-depth institutional analysis of the causes and consequences of the large number of unmotivated self-recusals and easily obtained recusals, covering the entire country. This could be carried out by the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council, the Supreme Judicial Council, and/or the Supreme Court of Cassation. The analysis should contain recommendations that do not jeopardize the independence of individual judges and their ability to form their own convictions.
- Amendments to procedural laws to introduce the possibility of collegial control over recusals (e.g., by another panel of judges). Such a measure would allow for greater transparency and prevention of abuse of this instrument without undermining the independence of the court.
- Effectively guaranteeing the physical integrity and safety of judges (including security) who are under pressure to recuse themselves in order to manipulate the outcome of a case.
- We remind the SJC and the ISJC that an unmotivated recusal may be grounds for disciplinary action for violation of the Code of Ethics for Judges.
References:
[1] Krasen Nikolov, “Hundreds of judges received stuffed rabbits at their swearing-in ceremony”: https://www.mediapool.bg/stotitsi-sadii-sa-poluchili-plyusheni-zaicheta-na-kletvata-si-news375240.html
[2] Ekaterina Baksanova, “Defending independence or a symptom of vulnerability: recusals in Bulgaria in 2024”: https://ime.bg/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/withdrawals-ime-29.05.2025.pdf; Ekaterina Baksanova, “Grant me recusal, grant me recusal and do not torment me any longer”: https://ime.bg/articles/otvod-mi-daj-otvod-mi-daj-i-poveche-ne-me-mychi/; Ekaterina Baksanova, “Self-recusals as a denial of justice”: https://ime.bg/articles/samo-otvodite-kato-otkaz-ot-pravosydie/; Ivan Bregov, “The high degree of sensitivity to the impartiality of the court as grounds for self-recusal”: https://ime.bg/articles/visokata-stepen-na-chuvstvitelnost-kym-bezpristrastnostta-na-syda-kato-osnovanie-za-samootvod/
Continue exploring:
It Is Time To Freeze Public Sector Wages in Bulgaria
Can We Build Consensus on Climate Policy? with Susi Dennison [PODCAST]