In brief
Bulgarian coalition Yes, Bulgaria will appeal the Central Election Commission’s 8‑to‑7 ruling that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s October 26 comments did not violate the Election Code. The appeal centers on the commission’s refusal to adjudicate more than 105 complaints about the use of government communication channels for campaigning. Democratic Bulgaria has called for resignations of certain CEC members, citing political bias.
On 26 February 2027, the Central Election Commission (CEC) concluded that Prime Minister Rumen Radev had not violated the election code in a statement made on 26 October 2026. The commission’s 8‑to‑7 vote to reject a complaint set the stage for a wider controversy, as the Yes, Bulgaria party, a component of the Democratic Bulgaria coalition, announced that it would appeal the decision. The appeal will focus on the CEC’s handling of more than 105 complaints that allege the prime minister used the Government Information Service and the official channels of the Council of Ministers to support presidential candidate Iliana Iotova.
CEC Decision on PM Radev's Statement
In its ruling, the CEC emphasized the timing of Radev’s remarks, noting that they were issued after the first round of the presidential election and before the official start of the campaign period. The commission reasoned that the statement was made outside a state or municipal entity that the state owns over half its shares and therefore did not constitute campaign material under Article 183 of the election code. The decision was adopted with eight votes in favour and seven against; the minority expressed concerns that the use of the Council of Ministers’ communication channels effectively served as campaign material. CEC officials Alina Dobreva and Vyara Todeva had objected to the ruling, pointing to the disseminated content as a violation.
The statement in question was released via the Government Information Service following Radev’s remarks at the opening of the Sofia Economic Forum. In his speech, the prime minister urged voters to support Iotova, describing those who opposed her as “assemblage‑makers” and asserting that the election was a “life‑and‑death battle.” His comments were subsequently distributed through the official website and press service of the Council of Ministers.
Yes, Bulgaria's Appeal and Democratic Bulgaria's Call
Yes, Bulgaria’s spokesperson said the CEC’s majority—composed of representatives from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane—failed to address whether it is permissible to use the official website and press service for campaign messages. The party contended that the commission shifted responsibilities during its deliberations and that its failure to rule on the merits of the 105 complaints “shields those in power” and undermines equal application of the law.
The CEC, and more specifically the members representing Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, between whom there is a new assemblage, owe the public their resignations. The CEC is not simply a directorate of the Council of Ministers; it is not an extension of the executive branch and must not do exactly what Radev and Iotova tell it to do.
Bozhidar Bozhanov, Co‑Chair of the Yes, Bulgaria party, said in a press conference that the CEC must not become an institutional shield that protects those in power from scrutiny. He also called for the resignation of the commission’s members from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, arguing that they had “violated the election code” by refusing to investigate the complaints. Democratic Bulgaria MP Aleksandra Sterkova noted that the commission’s members had attempted to evade a full examination of the reports from the outset.
The CEC’s decision triggered a wave of calls for accountability within the coalition that governs Bulgaria. Democratic Bulgaria has explicitly demanded that the commission’s members resign over what it calls an “assemblage” between Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane that has skewed the body’s impartiality. The coalition’s statement also warns that the CEC’s independence should enforce application of the law equally to all, not allow “invisible obstruction.”
In response to the calls, the CEC has no immediate indication that it will revisit the 105 complaints. The commission remains committed to its ruling that the prime minister’s statement did not constitute campaigning, and has forwarded relevant portions of the complaints to the Bulgarian National Audit Office for further scrutiny.
The appeal filed by Yes, Bulgaria will be heard by the Supreme Court of Bulgaria, which will determine whether the CEC applied the law correctly. The court has been scheduled to review election commission decisions on a case‑by‑case basis, but the specific timeline for this case has not yet been announced. The bilateral debate between the coalition and the CEC underscores a broader concern about the use of public funds for political messaging, a question that remains unresolved as courts consider the matter.
Uncertainties remain over whether the Supreme Court will reverse the CEC’s decision or whether the commission will, in the future, examine the 105 complaints that remain unresolved. The outcome will shape how government communication channels may be used in Bulgarian elections and how independent the election infrastructure is considered by political actors.
