In brief
Judge Krasimir Mazgalov, running for the Supreme Judicial Council’s judges’ quota, pledged to represent magistrates directly and overhaul procedural fairness. His platform focuses on judicial independence, workload fairness, transparent career advancement, and a disciplined accountability system.
In Sofia on October 31, 2026, Judge Krasimir Mazgalov, a judge at the Sofia City Court, announced his candidacy for the Supreme Judicial Council’s judges’ professional quota, claiming he would serve as a direct advocate for the judicial community. He highlighted his long‑standing criticism of the Council and argued that criticism must be coupled with proactive solutions.
According to BTA, Mazgalov viewed the General Assembly of Judges – held that Saturday – as an opportunity for select judges to become members of the new Supreme Judicial Council. He said that if elected he would maintain continual contact with magistrates to detect problems early and propose timely solutions.
BTA reported that Mazgalov’s priorities center on preserving judicial independence and uniting the magistrate community. He outlined plans to enforce “a fair distribution of workload, transparent career development and predictable disciplinary practice.” The outlet emphasized his commitment to “defending the independence and standing of the judiciary” while demanding greater transparency in the SJC’s decision‑making.
In the arena of personnel policy, BTA centered Mazgalov’s approach on objective appraisals and clear career criteria. He urged the Council to publish candidate evaluation standards in advance and to give increased weight to the General Assembly’s voices when selecting administrative leaders. The judge also suggested that these principles apply to the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court, and even the Prosecutor General.
According to the BTA coverage, Mazgalov criticized the existing lack of transparency in head appointments and called for carefully drafted profiles for leadership positions. He argued that measurable workloads should consider case complexity and work quality, not just case volume.
In BTA’s report, the judge specifically stressed the importance of “holding judges accountable for misconduct.” He proposed a “transparent, accountable and responsible” disciplinary system, emphasizing that the Supreme Judicial Council must act decisively against any judicial dereliction.
The article noted that Mazgalov’s rhetoric was aimed at changing the perception that the SJC is merely a bureaucratic body. He suggested that the Council’s role should be to defend judicial independence while simultaneously ensuring transparent oversight.
Through the night’s Assembly, BTA recorded that a comprehensive file on the candidates was processed by Assembly delegates. While Mazgalov’s platform was clear, the outlet also highlighted the need for a broad consensus among magistrates to implement these reforms.
Summarizing the BTA coverage, Mazgalov’s campaign is framed as a push for a more participatory SJC that actively engages with the judiciary, improves workload measurement, and restores public confidence through transparent personnel and disciplinary practices.
