In brief
The Central Election Commission (CEC) ruled that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s statement after the first round of Bulgaria’s presidential election did not breach the Election Code, dismissing a complaint by an 8‑to‑7 vote. Yes, Bulgaria, part of the Democratic Bulgaria parliamentary group, stated that the CEC failed to address more than 105 complaints about the use of government channels to promote candidate Iliana Iotova, and the party will appeal the ruling. The decision and the party’s reaction highlight differing views on the neutrality of state media during election campaigns.
Sofia, Bulgaria – The Central Election Commission (CEC) has ruled that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s statement regarding the first round of the presidential election did not contravene the Election Code, dismissing the complaint with a narrow 8‑to‑7 vote. The CEC’s decision, released on 28 October, cited the timing of the statement – made after the first round but before the official campaign period – as a key factor in its finding that the comment did not constitute electioneering. The statement, delivered to reporters at the opening of the Sofia Economic Forum, urged voters to support Iliana Iotova and was subsequently issued by the Government Information Service as a press release.
Three members of the CEC, including Alina Dobreva and Vyara Todeva, expressed objections to the decision, arguing that the dissemination of the Prime Minister’s remarks through official government channels effectively served as campaign material. The Commission also forwarded part of the reports to the Bulgarian National Audit Office. However, the CEC maintained that Radev’s remarks were made outside a state or municipal agency, and that the timing of the comment fell outside the scope of the Election Code’s prohibitions.
Against this decision, the political party Yes, Bulgaria – a member of the Democratic Bulgaria parliamentary group – issued a statement saying the CEC failed to give a verdict on more than 105 complaints lodged by the party and others. These complaints allege that the Prime Minister used the official website and press service of the Council of Ministers to broadcast his endorsement of Iotova, a position that the party views as a breach of equal application of the law. Yes, Bulgaria said that “the majority in the CEC, formed by the votes of representatives from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, did everything possible to avoid answering the question of whether it is permissible for the official website and press service of the Council of Ministers to disseminate Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s call to support a specific presidential candidate.”
The party’s statement also criticised the CEC for shifting responsibilities around during its meeting and not addressing the merits of the complaints. “This is particularly alarming, because we are not talking about a party page, a personal profile, or a campaign platform. We are talking about the official communication channels of the Council of Ministers, maintained with public funds,” Yes, Bulgaria warned. The party added that the CEC must not become an institutional shield protecting those in power from scrutiny and that the commission’s independence is an obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.
In a swipe at the CEC, Yes, Bulgaria concluded that its refusal to rule on the allegations “shields those in power and violates equal application of the law.” The party said it will immediately file an appeal with the Constitutional Court, calling on the Court to reconsider the commission’s judgment and to ensure compliance with the Election Code’s principles of transparency and fairness.
While the CEC stressed that the Prime Minister’s remarks fell outside the scope of election law due to their timing and context, the party argument is that official government channels should be immune from any statement that could influence a campaign. The division illustrates the broader debate over the boundaries of state communication during election periods and the mechanisms in place to monitor potential abuses of public resources.
Notably, the 8‑to‑7 vote that upheld the CEC’s conclusion shows a closely divided commission, with members from the ruling coalition benefiting from a narrow majority. The dissenting votes, mainly from independent and opposition-affiliated members, caution that the use of official channels for campaign purposes risks undermining public trust in impartial governance.
In the days following the decision, the CEC has indicated it will not revisit the merits of the complaints until the Constitutional Court’s appeal is decided. Meanwhile, Yes, Bulgaria has prepared legal arguments and is drafting a case that will focus on procedural shortcomings, the lack of a timely decision, and the potential violation of the principle of equal treatment under the law.
The outcome of the appeals process could set a significant precedent for how Bulgaria’s election authorities handle complaints about the use of state resources during campaign periods. If the Constitutional Court upholds the CEC’s ruling, it may reinforce the current interpretation that official statements made post‑first round are permissible. If it overturns the ruling, it could prompt stricter oversight of government communications and stricter enforcement of election code provisions.
For now, the debate continues along the lines of whether the CEC has fulfilled its duty to scrutinize potentially impartial use of state media or whether it has inadequately protected the electorate from perceived government influence. The next announcement from the Constitutional Court will likely be a focal point for observers of the upcoming presidential campaign.
