KRIB's position on the ZID of the Law on the Bar No. 554-01-14, submitted by Danail Kirilov and a group of people's representatives on February 26, 2015.

Mr. DANAIL KIRILOV
CHAIRMAN OF
LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

REGARDING: Bill for Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Advocacy, No. 554-01-14, submitted to the National Assembly on 23.01.2015 by Danail Kirilov and a group of people's representatives DEAR

MR KIRILOV,

In connection with the Draft Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Advocacy submitted to the National Assembly by a group of people's representatives, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria expresses its lack of support for the proposed changes in Art. 24, Para. 1, in relation to Art. 150 of the bill.

We believe that the proposed text of Article 24 violates not only the constitutional rights of citizens and legal entities, but is also in violation of commitments made by the state in international legal acts and monopolizes activities for the benefit of the legal profession, without guaranteeing an improvement in the protection of interests of citizens and organizations.

Specifically, the proposed text is in violation of:

Art. 16 and Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which labor is guaranteed and protected by law, the economy of our country is based on free economic initiative and the law creates and guarantees to all citizens and legal entities the same legal conditions for economic activity , by preventing abuse of monopoly, unfair competition and protecting the consumer;

ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, ratified by the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which workers' and employers' organizations cannot be dissolved or their activities suspended by administrative order.

Our expert opinion is that the proposed version of Article 24, regulating what is legal activity, is too broad and covers the usual activities of accountants and specialized accounting companies, legal consultants and other independent professions. It is our understanding that the problem does not consist in the fact that purely administrative, consulting, accounting, employment insurance and other services are included as legal activities, but rather in the fact that these activities are explicitly defined as activities in the powers only and only to lawyers, ie. the problem is not reduced so much to the new version of Article 24, which expands the powers of lawyers, but to the fact that, through the introduction of administrative responsibility, the performance of activities by persons outside the legal profession is prohibited.

With the changes in Art. 24, the representation before the administrative bodies is reduced to an exclusive lawyer's service. Drafting pleadings, answers, pleadings and appeals are also listed among the exclusive legal services, without mentioning that this only applies to the court. In the context of the provision, one is left with the belief that this is valid for all administrative bodies, i.e. cannot make any applications, including applications for VAT registration, respond to decisions in tax audits, oral and written consultations and opinions on tax legal issues, employment insurance issues, financial legal issues, for example the Law on Limiting Payments in number. The activity carried out by the accounting companies up to now, related to inquiries in the administrative bodies and receiving documents from them about the current status of the individuals' tax insurance accounts, is not excluded from the exclusive lawyer's activity.

In addition, we would like to emphasize that the proposed draft law, with the provisions of Art. 24, para. 1 content:

revokes already existing and regulated by Article 18, paragraph 2 of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) rights of citizens and organizations, which can be represented before the administrative authorities with a written power of attorney with notarization of the signature and by other citizens or organizations;

deprives citizens and legal entities of their right to make their own choice as to how best to protect their rights and legal interests, explicitly determining that the wide range of administrative, consulting, accounting, etc. services can only be provided by lawyers, which leads to the monopolization of these services;

does not take into account the fact that for the effective protection of civil and corporate rights, it is no longer enough to be registered in the bar register, but requires a lot of specialized knowledge, which not every lawyer possesses. This is especially evident on the plane of tax-insurance legal relations, where one can see how a perfectly drafted contract from a legal point of view leads to negative tax consequences;

creates a real precondition for increasing the cost of lawyers' services, regulating the listed activities only for their exercise by lawyers, in combination with the current in Art. 36, para. 2 of the Law on Advocacy, a provision that the lawyer's fee cannot be lower than that determined by the Ordinance on the minimum amounts of lawyer's fees, issued by the Supreme Bar Council

In addition, contrary to the statement in the reasons for the draft law that it is proposed to provide controlled authentication functions to lawyers in order to facilitate civil turnover, the proposed texts lack any rules and guarantees for controlling access to the information arrays of certain registers. In addition, it is proposed that only against a lawyer's card, lawyers have access to documents and information - something that individuals and legal entities do not have.

Provided by Art. 150 of the draft law, administrative-criminal liability for a person who carries out or proposes to carry out an activity under Art. 24 will lead not only to the monopolization of administrative and consulting services in favor of lawyers, but will deprive a significant part of economists, lawyers and persons with other. specialties to perform administrative and consulting services. At the same time, the provision in Art. 153 of the draft law, an obligation for the bodies of the judicial and executive authorities, notaries, private bailiffs and for all natural or legal persons to inform the relevant bar association of a violation under Art. 150, in order to sanction the offender with a fine or a pecuniary sanction, which goes to the account of the Bar Council, without it being clear what it will be used for, arouses the least bewilderment.

It is completely illogical and illegal what is provided for in Art. 150 administrative-criminal and property liability, provided that the reasons for the bill explicitly state that the list of lawyer activities in Art. 24 is not exhaustive. Otherwise, efforts to prevent random unqualified people from practicing law, which can seriously endanger the interests of citizens, should be encouraged. But this also applies to other professions and activities and must be regulated according to clear and comprehensive normatively defined criteria.

The proposed restrictions are extremely disturbing for small and medium-sized businesses that use these services. We fear that with the introduction of administrative responsibility and the ban on the implementation of activities by persons who are not lawyers, the access to activities of a certain circle of free professions is limited, in complete contradiction to the principles of free economic initiative.

With respect,
Eugene Ivanov
Ex. director