At its sitting on October 20, 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled on Constitutional Case No. 15/2026 and the joined cases, Constitutional Case No. 16/2026 and Constitutional Case No. 18/2026.
The cases were initiated at the request of members of the 52nd National Assembly and the Ombudsman to determine the unconstitutionality, in its entirety, of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026, §46 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026, the amendments to Art. 355, paragraphs 1 – 4 of the Labor Code, and in Article 218, paragraph 2 of the Judiciary Act, adopted by §11, items 1– 4, and §21, item 1 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the State Budget Act of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026.
The Court rejected the request to declare the State Budget Act of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026 unconstitutional in its entirety.
The Court declared unconstitutional the amendments to Article 355, paragraphs 1– 4, of the Labor Code and to Article 218, paragraph 2, of the Judiciary Act.
The Court dismissed the petition seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of §46 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026.
In rejecting the request to declare the State Budget Law of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026 unconstitutional in its entirety, the Constitutional Court held that the budget balance target for the “General Government” sector, as set forth in Article 25, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Public Finance Act, and the reference value for the budget deficit of that sector are based, on the one hand, on the State’s constitutionally binding commitment to participate in the construction and development of the European Union (Article 4, paragraph 3 of the Constitution), and, on the other hand, the fulfillment of a commitment undertaken by the State under an international treaty that has entered into force, been ratified, and promulgated (Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Constitution). When assessed in light of the rationale for their incorporation into the national legal system and in light of their significance for the functioning of the state and for the fundamental rights of citizens, these requirements take on the character of a rule through which the State’s constitutional commitment to participate in the construction and development of the European Union is fulfilled. Thus, within the framework of the national legal system, this rule acquires the nature of a rule pertaining to the constitutional foundations of public finances. In accordance with European Union law, the target for the “General Government” sector budget and the reference value for its deficit are part of a comprehensive mechanism that requires, in the event of a deviation from the target and the reference value, the implementation of measures to correct the deviation within a specified timeframe. Therefore, the adoption of a law on the annual state budget that deviates from the target for the “General Government” sector’s balance and from the reference value for that sector’s deficit does not, in and of itself, render such a law unconstitutional, but rather constitutes grounds for implementing measures to correct the deviation.
The Court holds that the requirements introduced into national law regarding the budget balance target under the consolidated fiscal program – calculated on a cash basis—and the reference value for the deficit of that program’s balance, as well as the prohibition on adopting a national budget with a deficit exceeding 3% of gross domestic product based on the balance of the “General Government” sector and under the consolidated fiscal program – were introduced by the legislature as a self-imposed restriction in law, which the legislative branch imposes upon itself; however, this does not constitute a specific constitutional requirement. The Court notes that in this case, the conflict between the two laws, while undoubtedly having a negative impact on legal certainty as an element of the formal aspect of the rule of law, remains at the statutory level, insofar as it does not violate constitutional principles and rules, and therefore does not constitute grounds for declaring the contested law unconstitutional.
In order to declare the amendments to Article 355, paragraphs 1 – 4, of the Labor Code – adopted by §11, items 1– 4, of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026—unconstitutional, the Court held that the amendment is not directly linked to the revenues and expenditures in the 2026 state budget.
To declare unconstitutional the provision of Article 218, paragraph 2, in the part stating “60 percent of the basic monthly salary of a member of the National Assembly” of the Judiciary Act, introduced by §21, item 1 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026, the Court held that although the amendment is justified by a general objective and was enacted by law, insofar as it enters into force on July 31, 2026, and alters a long-established statutory mechanism for determining the remuneration of judges, prosecutors, and investigators, it exceeds the constitutionally permissible link to the 2026 State Budget Act. The amendment violates the constitutional requirement of Article 133 of the Constitution regarding the stability of the status of judges, prosecutors, and investigators.
Due to an amendment to Article 244(2) of the Labor Code, the effect of which was suspended by the contested §46 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Law on the State Budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2026, and the consequent expiration of its effect, the Court dismissed the request to declare it unconstitutional.
Eleven constitutional judges participated in the sitting.
The Decision was signed with dissenting opinions by Justices Atanas Semov, Yanaki Stoilov, Sasho Penov, and Nevin Feti regarding Article 355, paragraphs 1 – 4, of the Labor Code, and by Justice Orlin Kolev regarding Article 218, paragraph 2, of the Judiciary Act.
The Decision was signed with statements by Judge Orlin Kolev regarding Article 355, paragraphs 1 – 4, of the Labor Code, and by Judges Atanas Semov, Yanaki Stoilov, Sasho Penov, and Nevin Feti, as well as Judge Galina Toneva, regarding Article 218, paragraph 2, of the Judiciary Act.
Dissenting opinions and statements will be published on the Constitutional Court’s website at a later date.
The full text of the Decision: https://www.constcourt.bg/bg/act-10456