The primary task of a caretaker cabinet is to organize and conduct fair elections. This is what politicians state every time they express disagreement with the policies of a caretaker government appointed by the president.
However, the powers of caretaker governments are not clearly defined, as noted in Decision 20 of the Constitutional Court regarding case No. 30/92. The ruling states that “it is not possible to enumerate the powers of the caretaker government through an interpretation of the Constitution. It is not possible to mandatorily define these powers through a separate law. In fact, such enumeration is not provided in the Constitution for the powers of the Council of Ministers in general.”
Following a series of caretaker governments, an increasing number of lawyers and analysts highlight the need for a clarification of their mandates. But as long as this does not happen, these cabinets, and the ministers within them, can undertake various actions, even those that, at first glance, seem illogical or even absurd. At the beginning of the Donov cabinet’s term, the Minister of Environment and Water, Rositsa Karamfilova, stated in a television interview that directors of Regional Inspectorates for Environment Protection (RIEW) under suspicion of conflicts of interest would be temporarily transferred to the same positions in another inspection while appropriate checks were conducted.
Shortly after this statement, and immediately after Diаna Iskрева was appointed director of RIEW-Stara Zagora, she was sent to head the regional environmental inspection in Plovdiv for about a month, while her predecessor, Ivaylo Yotkov, took the director’s position in Stara Zagora. Coincidentally or deliberately, the rotation occurred right after Iskрева issued an order for the forced shutdown of the operations of the “Brikel” Thermal Power Plant during the tenure of Minister of Environment and Water Borislav Sandov.
With her transfer to Plovdiv, she was stripped of any possibility of exercising control over the activities of the company associated with the name of Hristo Kovachki. Incidentally, the State Agency for National Security (DANS) did not have time to investigate the ownership of “Brikel,” as requested by former Prime Minister Kiril Petkov.
Such rotations of directors have been implemented in half of the regional environmental inspections in the country, according to a response received by “Za Istinata” from the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) regarding Minister Karamfilova’s initiative.
We publish the ministry’s response without editorial intervention:
“Regarding the implementation of a rotational principle for the directors of Regional Inspectorates for Environment Protection (RIEW), we inform you that this principle has currently been applied to seven (Stara Zagora, Plovdiv, Haskovo, Pazardzhik, Burgas, Ruse, and Veliko Tarnovo) of all 15 Regional Inspectorates.
The application of the temporary rotation principle for managerial staff aims to exchange experience and good practices in the implementation of environmental legislation. ‘Dependencies,’ according to your inquiry, are examined insofar as the rotational principle helps to create a clearer and more objective assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in the work of the respective inspection.
So far, the rotation of directors, where implemented, shows an improvement in the internal organization of the inspections’ work, an enhancement of the comprehensive approach during checks, and an overall improvement in control activities.
Guided by the principle that the implementation of environmental legislation must be unequivocal and lawful by all managers of the regional units, the rotation will be applied to other RIEWs at the discretion of the management.”
The arguments for the rotation of directors are absurd and nonsensical. One month is hardly enough to familiarize oneself with the companies subject to oversight by RIEW in a region like Plovdiv. Moreover, the Stara Zagora inspection covers two additional areas—Sliven and Yambol.
In just 22 working days, one cannot even learn the names of the employees in the respective inspection, let alone assess its strengths and weaknesses.
The stated “effects” of this initiative, such as the exchange of experience and good practices in environmental legislation and the improvement of internal work organization in inspections, are mere rhetoric. It is more than certain that by removing a director under the pretext of investigating some unclear dependencies, you will create an environment for intrigue and undermine the integrity of a collective, if such a collective has even been established in the face of strong corruption pressure on its employees and the temptation to succumb to it.
With the reallocation of directors of Regional Inspectorates for Environment Protection throughout the country, which caretaker Minister Karamfilova promises to continue during her mandate, she appears to be serving the interests of companies and enterprises, particularly in the energy sector, that systematically violate the Environmental Protection Act and the terms of their integrated permits. This includes the “Brikel” Thermal Power Plant, for instance, whose latest integrated permit Karamfilova personally signed in her previous role as director of the Executive Environment Agency. Instead of shutting it down, she is well aware that its 60-year-old boilers are beyond repair and could collapse at any moment, as well as the fact that the plant cannot meet European emission standards.
Another telling fact related to the motives behind the rotation of environmental inspectors’ directors is linked to the transfer of Diana Iskрева to Plovdiv. The ministerial order for her came precisely during a period when intensive inspections were being conducted at the power plants in the Eastern Maritsa mining basin with the participation of experts from across the country. Furthermore, this happened at the same time when a case was initiated in the Administrative Court in Stara Zagora by “Brikel” against the order for the forced shutdown of the plant.
While we do not know what the motives of Rositsa Karamfilova were for the reallocations of directors in other inspections across the country, her actions raise the question of whether the minister herself should be investigated for potential conflicts of interest.
