In brief
The Yes, Bulgaria party, part of the Democratic Bulgaria coalition, announced an appeal of the Central Election Commission’s 8‑to‑7 decision that the Prime Minister’s comments made on the first round’s outcome did not breach the Election Code. The appeal focuses on the CEC’s failure to address over 105 complaints about government channels used to disseminate the remarks. Members of the commission, viewed as aligned with Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, face calls for resignation amid concerns the body has shielded those in power.
The Yes, Bulgaria party, a constituent of the Democratic Bulgaria parliamentary group, declared on 28 October 2026 that it will file an appeal against the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) ruling that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s remarks following the first round of the presidential election did not violate the Election Code. The party’s statement was released in Sofia, where the CEC’s decision had been announced a few days earlier.
The CEC’s 8‑to‑7 vote, decided on Monday, found no administrative offence in the Prime Minister’s comments, which were issued through the Government Information Service after the CEC had announced the first‑round results. The Council of Ministers’ press office subsequently reproduced the remarks, and the government’s official website displayed them until the start of the election silence period for the forthcoming runoff on 1 November.
Consisting of 105 separate complaints, the council’s case alleges that the use of official government channels to promote presidential candidate Iliana Iotova amounts to electioneering. In the CEC meeting, the majority—formed by representatives of Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane—dismissed the case, citing the timing of the statement as occurring outside the boundaries of an election campaign. The CEC further argued that the Prime Minister’s remarks were not campaign material, since they were made outside any state or municipal agency, government enterprise, or commercial company in which public entities hold a majority stake.
The Yes, Bulgaria party’s leaders label the commission’s refusal to rule on the merits of those 105 complaints as an institutional shield protecting those in power. "The CEC must not become an institutional shield that protects those in power from scrutiny," read the party’s statement. Bozhidar Bozhanov, co‑chair of Yes, Bulgaria and a member of the Democratic Bulgaria coalition, wrote on 29 October at a press conference, "The CEC, and more specifically the members representing Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, owe the public their resignations."
Bozhanov further cautioned that the CEC is not an extension of the executive branch. “The CEC is an independent body that must not do what the executive branch tells it to do, especially when it comes to ensuring the integrity of elections,” he said. He added that the CEC’s actions—or lack thereof—could undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
Alongside Bozhidar Bozhanov’s remarks, Democratic Bulgaria MP Aleksandra Sterkova contended that from the outset the commission members had sought to avoid examining the complaint drafters on its merits. She criticised the “new assemblage” between Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, the two parties that appear to have aligned to push the commission’s decision that would benefit the Prime Minister’s political stance.
The CEC’s decision was initially prompted by a complaint lodged by the Gurov‑Kandev Nomination Committee, which represented the presidential ticket of Andrey Gurov and Georgi Kandev. The committee had called the Prime Minister’s statement “electioneering” and, on 28 October, filed a formal complaint with the commission. The committee’s appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court subsequently argued that the government’s official communications were used as a campaign platform to support Iliana Iotova during the runoff.
During the same period, the Gurov‑Kandev committee highlighted that the dissemination of the Prime Minister’s remarks through the Council of Ministers’ press office and the Government Information Service constituted a breach of the Election Code. They appealed for removal of the support announcement from the state website before the election silence period to prevent further campaigning before the second round of the presidential election scheduled for 1 November.
In its rejoinder, the CEC forwarded portions of the incoming appeals to the Bulgarian National Audit Office and noted that “there exist no separate assembly of issues in the case, the Commission may not examine the complaint on its merits.” The bulk of these arguments centered on whether the Prime Minister’s remarks, which were made in an official capacity, fell under the umbrella of campaign materials as outlined in Article 183 of the Election Code.
On 29 October, the Democratic Bulgaria coalition called for the resignation of CEC members they accused of “violating the election code and refusing to rule on reports of violations by the press service of the Council of Ministers.” Their complaint stressed that the 105 complaints should have been put on trial, but the commission’s members opted to vacate the issue, strengthening claims that the CEC’s independence is compromised by party politics.
The Yes, Bulgaria party’s appeal is expected to move to the Supreme Administrative Court. The CEC’s decision was made without a thorough examination of the 105 complaints, giving rise to intense criticism from opposition parties that the commission has effectively protected those in power from scrutiny. The outcome of the appeal could impact the enforcement of election regulations for the November runoff and shape the future of Bulgaria’s electoral oversight mechanisms.
