site.btaEU Pays for Bulgarian Judiciary Modernization while National Authorities Are Preoccupied with Salaries, Think-Tank Says

The non-transparent way in which EU funding is shared out and used in Bulgaria undermines public confidence in the meaning of the EU's very existence and the role of the country's membership in the bloc. The lead-up to Bulgaria's accession in 2007 saw the first steps to strengthen the institutional independence of the nation's judiciary and to raise public confidence in the system as it began to adopt international standards. The process has always been funded mainly from external sources, and the attainment of concrete goals has implied strong cooperation from local politicians, the public administration and people working in the judicial system. EU recommendations, however, have often met with disapproval and resistance from politicians, and members of the judiciary have typically remained neutral towards the issues affecting their own professional environment, the Institute for Market Economics (IME) says in the summary of a report titled "European Union Funding for Undertakings of Key Importance to the Bulgarian Judicial System: 2017-2024".

The study was conducted with the support of the Netherlands Foreign Ministry, and its summary was published on the IME website on November 7.

The Institute notes that in the last 10 years, the Bulgarian judicial system has become a well-funded branch of power. One of the elements of its independence – the availability of financial resources, constitutionally established as a separate item in the state budget – has emerged as a pre-emptive guarantee dominating the constitutional leverage for judicial independence.

The system's independence rests on two legally established institutes: security of appointment and security of pay. All other judiciary expenses are of secondary nature as they do not influence the administration of justice in any direct way. In the Bulgarian legal landscape, funding from the EU, along with Europe's recommendations for transforming the country's judicial system, are the main driving force behind the strengthening of the system's independence. It is therefore important to see who gets to use EU resources, and how, the IME says.

This report aims to offer at least a quantitative assessment of the external funding received by Bulgaria's public authorities to reinforce the capacity of the national judicial system, specifically the bodies administrating the processes in the system: the Supreme Judicial Council and its Inspectorate, the Ministry of Justice and the National Institute of Justice. The study covers the period from 2017 to 2024, and also includes projects launched earlier but remaining unfinished by 2017.

What the naked eye sees

Between 2017 and 2024, funding from the EU intended for Bulgarian judicial institutions totalled BGN 70.5 million, including BGN 62.5 million (88.75%) actually paid. The amount represented a tiny fraction (0.92%) of the judicial system budget over that period, but it was more than 54% of the capital expenses in the sector. In other words, more than half of investments in upgrading Bulgaria's judiciary came from the EU, the study found.

Basically, the Supreme Judicial Council and its Inspectorate, the Ministry of Justice and the National Institute of Justice all got – and spent – what they asked for. The effect of that spending is another matter, the IME says.

Approximately 57% of total EU funding for the Bulgarian judiciary and a little over 53% of the money actually disbursed, was targeted at projects of the Supreme Judicial Council. Another quarter of the resources were for projects of the National Institute of Justice. Other beneficiaries implemented fewer and less costly EU-funded undertakings, which made their share smaller.

More findings and conclusions

In addition to being a financial instrument, EU funding for the Bulgarian judicial system between 2017 and 2024 serves as an indicator of the institutions' capacity to implement targeted and sustainable policies in the field of justice, the report says. Although the amount of BGN 70.5 million was less than 1% of the consolidated budget of the judicial system over the reporting period, its share in the capital expenses was more than a half. This shows the strategic role of EU money as the main driver of the technological and institutional modernization of the Bulgarian judicial system.

According to the study, the system shows considerable administrative capacity to absorb the resources, in some cases utilizing more than 90% of the approved funding. But this still leaves out the important question of the effect of such aid on the quality of the dispensation of justice and public confidence in the system. Projects of the Supreme Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice are often assessed based on formal indicators such as number of activities, training courses and adopted documents, while parameters like speed of justice, administrative burden cuts and transparency-related improvements remain elusive.

Positive examples do exist, however. Efforts to introduce an integrated electronic justice portal and to build centralized registers are important steps forward in digitizing the judicial process. The results may be less than perfect, and spending efficiency may be questionable, but these systems wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the EU money, the report argues.

The worst weakness, it says, is the failure to appreciate the importance of planning. Once a project is over, maintenance, upgrades and effectiveness analysis are rarely carried out on own resources. The Supreme Judicial Council keeps upgrading the same electronic portals and registers all the time, making it impossible to verify whether the results are what rank-and-file magistrates, Bar members and private individuals expected. EU money thus becomes a substitute, rather than a catalyst, for the responsibility of the state. The pattern of "externally maintained development" creates a dependency as modernization stops after the last penny for a project is absorbed.

As far as management is concerned, the Supreme Judicial Council is the central coordinator of modernization, but it is not really clear who gets what, and why, the IME says. The lack of a public register of members responsible for projects, the absence of information about how much they are paid, and the failure to establish public indicators of effectiveness create the impression that it is all a formality, with implementation motivated by the available budget, not real needs. The Council should adopt clear internal rules for assessing project results, including by conducting satisfaction polls among magistrates, court employees and Bar members – groups that are meant to use the project outputs.

The absence of clarity about funding and effectiveness typically affects large projects for digitization, modernization and software and hardware solutions for the judicial system, implemented by the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Judicial Council.

In a broader sense, EU funding plays a symbolic role. It shows that Europe not only invests in the Bulgarian judicial system but also trusts the country to show responsibility, the report says. Bulgaria should respond by showing more transparency, effectiveness and results which are not just described in the project reports but are also felt in the everyday lives of the citizens, who expect quick, predictable and accessible justice. The Bulgarian authorities lay particular emphasis on the incomes of judiciary members, while system upgrading and skill raising largely rely on EU money.

It is worth repeating that between 2017 and 2024, EU funding for Bulgaria's judicial institutions totalled BGN 70.5 million, including BGN 62.5 million actually paid. The draft judicial system budget for 2026, of which 90% is for salaries, amounts to EUR 1 billion (about BGN 2 billion), the IME says.