site.btaUPDATED Constitutional Court Rules Parliament Chair Has No Competence to Determine Admissibility of National Referendum

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Parliament Chair does not have the competence to determine the admissibility of a national referendum and to reject a proposal made by an entity empowered by the law, the Court’s press office announced on Tuesday.

The Constitutional Court issued an interpretative decision on the constitutional case. It ruled that "the National Assembly Chair does not have the authority to assess the requirements established by law under which a national referendum is permissible and to reject a proposal made by a body authorized by law," the statement said. “This power belongs solely to the National Assembly,” the Court added.

The reasoning for the decision stated that, "according to the Constitution, the people are the sole source of state power, which is exercised by them directly or through the entities provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, no MP, and the National Assembly Chair in particular, has the right to exercise power unilaterally and to decide on matters which the basic law has entrusted solely to the collective body elected by the voters and exercising power on their behalf."

The Court said that the exclusive power of Parliament to decide to hold a referendum inherently implies its exclusive competence to assess all the requirements laid down in the law concerning the admissibility for holding such a referendum. According to the Constitutional Court, this assessment is not merely a matter of procedure but of constitutional competence.

Unlike the acts of the National Assembly, which are subject to constitutional review, the individual acts of its Chair are excluded from such review, which is also noted in the ruling on the admissibility of the President's request, the Court added.

“For this reason, the issuance of a unilateral act by the Parliament Chair, which essentially impedes the exercise of the exclusive constitutional competence of the national representative body, is unacceptable from the point of view of basic law, because in practice it circumvents the established order of control over the acts of the National Assembly. As a result, the possibility of verifying compliance with the principles and provisions of the Constitution is impeded, this threatens and even deprives of content its supremacy in exercising state power," the press release said.

The decision was adopted with 11 votes and one dissenting opinion of Judge Borislav Belazelkov. Judges Atanas Semov and Sonya Yankulova presented their reports. Judge Atanas Semov’s report and the dissenting opinion of Judge Borislav Belazelkov will be published on the Constitutional Court's website, the Court added.

***

In May 2025, Bulgarian President Rumen Radev proposed to the National Assembly to resolve on holding a national referendum in which Bulgarians would be asked whether they agree to the introduction of the euro in Bulgaria in 2026.

National Assembly Chair Nataliya Kiselova rejected the President's proposal, arguing that it is inadmissible because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Bulgaria's EU Accession Treaty, the Act concerning the conditions of accession, and the Direct Citizen Participation in State and Local Government Act.

At the end of May, President Radev petitioned the Constitutional Court to nullify Kiselova's refusal to include his proposal for the conduct of a national referendum on Parliament's agenda.

A month later, the Constitutional Court said that an interpretative decision on one of the questions asked would be provided, but not all questions from Radev's petition were admitted for consideration.