site.btaConstitutional Court Rules on Case Challenging Validity of Cabinet Election

At its session on Monday, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in Constitutional Case No. 12/2025, admitting for substantive examination the request submitted by 49 Members of Parliament from the 51st National Assembly seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of the decisions adopted by the 51st National Assembly on January 16, 2025, for: the election of the 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.

The Court dismissed the request of the 49 Members of Parliament from the 51st National Assembly for a binding interpretation of Articles 1(2), 67(1) and 84(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria on the following questions:

Are decisions of the National Assembly considered valid when adopted with the votes of Members of Parliament whose election has been declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court?

Can such decisions produce legal consequences if, without those votes, the constitutionally required majority for the election of a Prime Minister, and for the adoption of the structure and composition of the Council of Ministers, is not met?

Should the decisions of January 16, 2025, on the election of a Prime Minister, the structure of the Council of Ministers, and the election of the Council of Ministers be declared invalid?

In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court said that the legal issue framed in the first interpretative question does not concern the need to interpret the constitutional provisions cited in the request, but rather concerns the temporal legal effect of the Court’s decisions under Article 149(1)(7) of the Constitution.

The Court finds that the second question is not supported by allegations of ambiguity in any constitutional provision, one of the prerequisites for issuing a binding interpretation.

Through the third question, the applicants seek, by way of interpretation, an answer as to whether the referenced decisions of the National Assembly are unconstitutional and what the legal effect would be of a Constitutional Court ruling within its powers under Article 149(1)(2) of the Constitution. The question thus posed does not concern interpretation of the Constitution, but rather concerns potential consequences arising from the exercise of another constitutional power of the Constitutional Court.

The Court concluded that the review of the constitutionality of acts adopted by the National Assembly, conducted by the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 149(1)(2) of the Constitution, cannot be carried out through its power to issue binding interpretations under Article 149(1)(1) of the Constitution, as requested by the applicants.

All constitutional judges participated in the session.

The ruling was adopted unanimously.