Decision No. 11 of 18 November 2025 on Constitutional Case No. 8/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the President of the Republic of Bulgaria for a binding interpretation of the provisions of Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution, in connection with the following question: In accordance with his constitutional powers, does the Chairperson of the National Assembly have the competence to assess whether the requirements for holding a national referendum are met, by rejecting a proposal submitted by a subject authorised by law?
The need for an interpretation of the Constitution is substantiated by the existence of differing procedural approaches on the part of “the Parliament and its Chairpersons” in response to a proposal by the President to hold a national referendum. In the request, the President sets out his understanding of the constitutional framework, drawing attention to the fact that “the competence of the National Assembly to adopt a decision to hold a national referendum pursuant to Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution is exclusive,” and that acts of the Chairperson of Parliament cannot substitute for acts of the Parliament itself.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
Under the Constitution, the people are the sole source of state power, and that power is exercised either directly by them or through the bodies established by the Constitution. Consequently, no Member of Parliament, and in particular not the Chairperson of the National Assembly, is vested with the authority to exercise power unilaterally or to decide matters which the Constitution has entrusted exclusively to the collective body elected by the voters and exercising power on their behalf. This also applies to Parliament’s power under Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution to decide on the holding of a national referendum.
The exclusive power of the National Assembly to adopt a decision to hold a national referendum inherently presupposes its exclusive competence to assess all statutory requirements relating to the admissibility of such a referendum, including the matters that may be resolved by a national referendum, when the National Assembly has been seized by subjects authorised by law. In the Court’s view, such an assessment is not merely a procedural matter but one of constitutional competence.
The Court draws attention to the fact that, unlike the acts of the National Assembly, which are subject to review for constitutionality, the unilateral acts of its Chairperson are excluded from such review, as was also noted in the ruling admitting the President’s request for examination on the merits. For this reason, the issuance of an unilateral act by the Chairperson of Parliament which, in substance, obstructs the exercise of the exclusive constitutional competence of the national representative body is intolerable from the perspective of the Constitution, as it effectively circumvents the established procedure for reviewing the acts of the National Assembly. As a result, the possibility of verifying compliance with the principles and provisions of the Constitution is frustrated, thereby risking calling into question - and even depriving of substance - the supremacy of the Constitution in the exercise of state power.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution (empowering the Court to provide binding interpretations of the Constitution), the Constitutional Court holds that the Chairperson of the National Assembly does not have the authority to assess the statutory requirements governing the admissibility of holding a national referendum, nor to reject a proposal submitted by a subject authorised by law. Pursuant to Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution, that power belongs exclusively to the National Assembly.
The decision is signed with one dissenting opinion and two separate opinions.