Resolution No. 8 of 18 November 2025 on Constitutional Case No. 12/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated on 26 October 2025 upon a request by 49 Members of the 51st National Assembly for a binding interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 67, paragraph 1, and Article 84, item 8 of the Constitution, with a view to answering the following questions: “Are decisions of the National Assembly adopted with the votes of Members of Parliament whose election has been declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court to be considered valid? May such decisions produce legal effects if, without those votes, the constitutionally required majority for the election of a Prime Minister and for the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers is not attained? Should the decisions for the election of a Prime Minister and for the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers of 16 January 2025 be declared invalid?”
A request has also been submitted for the declaration of unconstitutionality and invalidity of the decisions of the 51st National Assembly of 16 January 2025 (votes) concerning the election of a Prime Minister (Decision No. 6), the structure (Decision No. 7), and the composition (Decision No. 8) of the Council of Ministers.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
I. On the Request for a Binding Interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 67, paragraph 1, and Article 84, item 8 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has not previously delivered a judgment or issued a ruling of inadmissibility on an earlier request with the same subject matter. Accordingly, the negative procedural precondition under Article 21, paragraph 6 of the Constitutional Court Act is not present.
In the request submitted, the applicants do not advance arguments demonstrating doubts as to the meaning of the constitutional provisions indicated for interpretation. It is maintained that the decisions of 16 January 2025 of the 51st National Assembly concerning the election of a Prime Minister and the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers were adopted “with the decisive participation” of eight Members of Parliament. As their election was subsequently declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 1/2025 on Constitutional Case No. 33/2024, the applicants, through the first two interpretative questions, raise the issue of the validity and legal effects of decisions of the National Assembly adopted with their participation. The third question concerns the constitutionality of the decisions of 16 January 2025 on the election of a Prime Minister and on the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers and cannot be regarded as an interpretative question.
Thus framed, the legal issue raised in the first interpretative question does not concern the need to interpret the constitutional provisions cited in the request. Rather, it pertains to the temporal legal effect of the Court’s decisions under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 7 of the Constitution. Insofar as the question relates to legal facts that occurred prior to the adoption of a decision of the Constitutional Court under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 7, respectively Article 66 of the Constitution, it presupposes the temporal effect of the Court’s decisions under Article 151 of the Constitution - but only those decisions whereby the Court exercises its jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the lawfulness of the election of an individual Member of Parliament or of the National Assembly.
No such arguments are put forward in the request. In Interpretative Decision No. 14/2013 on Constitutional Case No. 17/2013, the Constitutional Court held as follows: “[…] decisions in disputes concerning the lawfulness of the election of the President, Vice President, or a Member of Parliament, concerning the establishment of ineligibility or incompatibility of a Member of Parliament, as well as concerning factual impossibility to perform duties and incompatibility of a judge, enter into force as of the date of their pronouncement, prior to their promulgation […] From Article 151, paragraph 2 of the Constitution and the supplement contained in Article 14 of the Constitutional Court Act, it follows that, specifically with regard to the temporal effect of the Constitutional Court’s decisions, such effect is prospective or, as the Court stated in Decision No. 22/1995 on Constitutional Case No. 25/1995 and Decision No. 24/1995 on Constitutional Case No. 30/1995, ‘for the future.’”
The provision of Article 84, paragraph 8 of the Constitution is irrelevant to the second interpretative question raised, as it concerns the power of the National Assembly to elect and dismiss the Governor of the Bulgarian National Bank and the heads of other institutions established by law. As is evident from the content of the question, it relates instead to the powers of the National Assembly under Article 84, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Constitution, provisions for which no interpretation has been requested. Apart from the fact that the question is not substantiated by an alleged ambiguity in a constitutional provision - one of the prerequisites for delivering a binding interpretation - it should also be noted that the provision does not determine the type of majority (simple, absolute, or qualified) by which the National Assembly may adopt its acts, in particular decisions concerning the election of a Prime Minister and the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers.
By means of the third question raised by the applicants, an answer is sought - through interpretative proceedings - on whether specific decisions of the National Assembly are unconstitutional and what the legal effect would be of a decision of the Constitutional Court adopted pursuant to its powers under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution.
The review of constitutionality of acts adopted by the National Assembly, which the Constitutional Court exercises under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution, cannot be carried out through its power to deliver binding interpretations under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution, toward which effect the present request is directed.
For the foregoing reasons, the request for a binding interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 67, paragraph 1, and Article 84, item 8 of the Constitution is inadmissible and must therefore be dismissed.
II. On the Request for a Declaration of Unconstitutionality of the Decisions of the 51st National Assembly of 16 January 2025 Concerning the Election of a Prime Minister and the Structure and Composition of the Council of Ministers.
The request has been submitted by a subject vested with the right of initiative within the meaning of Article 150, paragraph 1 of the Constitution - namely, 49 Members of the 51st National Assembly - and complies with the requirements of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act and Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.
The subject matter of the request is the establishment of the unconstitutionality of decisions of the National Assembly, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2, second alternative, of the Constitution.
On such subject matter, the Constitutional Court has not previously delivered a judgment or issued a ruling of inadmissibility; therefore, the negative procedural precondition under Article 21, paragraph 6 of the Constitutional Court Act is not present.
For the foregoing reasons, the Constitutional Court finds that the request for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the decisions of the 51st National Assembly of 16 January 2025 concerning the election of a Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, the adoption of the structure of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria, and the election of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria should be admitted for consideration on the merits.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2 of the Constitution (jurisdiction to rule on requests for a binding interpretation of the Constitution and for the establishment of the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court admits for consideration on the merits the request of 49 Members of the 51st National Assembly for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the decisions of the 51st National Assembly concerning the election of a Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, the adoption of the structure of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria, and the election of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria, adopted on 16 January 2025 (promulgated in State Gazette, issue No. 5 of 2025).
The Court dismisses the request of 49 Members of the 51st National Assembly for a binding interpretation of the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 67, paragraph 1, and Article 84, item 8 of the Constitution with respect to the questions raised therein.
Председател: Павлина Панова