In brief
In February 2027, Yes, Bulgaria announced it would appeal the Central Election Commission’s narrow 8‑to‑7 ruling that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s remarks did not violate election law. The party and other opposition groups argue the commission failed to address more than 105 complaints about the use of official government media to support Iliana Iotova. The dispute remains unresolved, with several appeals to higher courts filing.
On 26 February 2027, the political group Yes, Bulgaria announced its intention to appeal the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) ruling that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s statement regarding the first round of the presidential election did not breach the Election Code. The appeal follows the commission’s dismissal of more than 105 complaints alleging the use of government channels to support presidential candidate Iliana Iotova.
The CEC’s decision came after an 8‑to‑7 vote that determined Radev’s remarks, made on 26 October, were not electioneering. The commission highlighted the timing—prior to the official campaign period and outside a state agency—and cited Decision No. 417 of 27 October, which it said confirmed no violation.
Nonetheless the commission acknowledged that Radev’s comments were subsequently reproduced by the Council of Ministers’ press office, and that a number of NGOs had referred the case to the commission. Members Alina Dobreva and Vyara Todeva publicly objected, arguing that the dissemination through official channels was the core issue that ruled out compliance with the Election Code.
In the wake of the vote, members of the Democratic Bulgaria coalition demanded the resignation of CEC members affiliated with Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane. Co‑chair of the Yes, Bulgaria party, Bozhidar Bozhanov, was quoted as saying:
"The CEC, and more specifically the members representing Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, owe the public their resignations."
The party’s statement added: "The CEC must not become an institutional shield that protects those in power from scrutiny," and called for the commission to examine the merits of the 105 complaints rather than avoiding the issue.
The National Audit Office has received portions of the reports that fall within the commission’s jurisdiction. What remains unclear is whether the CEC will conduct a separate review of the use of government media for campaign messages, or if the decision to leave the matter unexamined will stand.
Simultaneously, the Gurov‑Kandev nomination committee, which backs the Gurov‑Kandev presidential ticket, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. The committee argues that the government’s press office should remove Radev’s support call from the state website before the upcoming election silence period. They stated:
"Official state communication channels are not a platform for election campaigning."
While the commission’s decision remains in force, several political actors and observers have indicated a willingness to pursue legal challenges, and a number of complaints remain unresolved.
Uncertainties: Sources disagree over whether the use of government channels for political messages constitutes a violation, and it is unclear whether the CEC will ultimately rule on the merits of the 105 complaints or if higher courts will overturn the commission’s narrow 8‑to‑7 finding.
