In brief
The Central Election Commission (CEC) dismissed a complaint that Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s message about the first round of the presidential election violated the Election Code, a decision that was overturned by an 8‑to‑7 vote. The Yes, Bulgaria party points to the CEC’s refusal to rule on over 105 complaints about the use of government communication channels to back candidate Iliana Iotova, arguing that the commission’s inaction shields those in power. The appeal raises questions about the extent to which state‑managed media can be used for political persuasion and whether the CEC’s interpretation of the law will hold under judicial scrutiny.
Sofia, 28 October 2026— the Central Election Commission (CEC) ruled that Prime Minister Rumen Radev did not violate election rules in making a statement about the first round of the presidential election, while the party Yes, Bulgaria announced it will appeal the decision.
The CEC’s finding came after the Gaza-Kandev nomination committee referred a case of alleged electioneering via the Council of Ministers’ official information channels to the commission. Radev’s remarks, made at the opening of the Sofia Economic Forum, urged voters to support candidate Iliana Iotova and were subsequently disseminated by the Government Information Service in a press release. The commission decided that the statement was issued outside a state or municipal entity, before the official campaign period, and therefore did not amount to campaign material under Article 183 of the Election Code.
In a narrow 8‑to‑7 vote, the CEC dismissed the complaint: eight commissioners voted in favour of the ruling and seven opposed it. During the vote, the majority, composed of representatives from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, decided not to rule on more than 105 complaints lodged against the use of government channels to advantage Iotova’s candidacy. The commission forwarded the relevant portion of the reports within its jurisdiction to the Bulgarian National Audit Office, while the objections of Alina Dobreva and Vyara Todeva were recorded. Todeva said, in a statement attributed to her, that it was not the Prime Minister’s statement itself that constituted a violation, but rather the dissemination of that statement through the Council of Ministers’ communication channels.
Background
Yes, Bulgaria, a constituent of the Democratic Bulgaria parliamentary group, claims that the CEC’s refusal to address the merits of the 105 complaints amounts to shielding those in power. The party’s statement reads: “The majority in the CEC, formed by the votes of representatives from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, did everything possible to avoid answering the question of whether it is permissible for the official website and press service of the Council of Ministers to disseminate Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s call to support a specific presidential candidate.”
They added, “This is particularly alarming, because we are not talking about a party page, a personal profile, or a campaign platform. We are talking about the official communication channels of the Council of Ministers, maintained with public funds.” The party stressed that the CEC must not become an institutional shield protecting those in power from scrutiny and urged the commission to uphold its obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.
The commission’s reasoning cited the timing of Radev’s remarks, noting that they were made on 26 October, before the official campaign period, and following the adoption of Decision No. 417 of 27 October, which reported the results of the first round of the presidential and vice‑presidential elections. The CEC argued that the Prime Minister’s statement, made outside a state or municipal agency and before campaign activities began, did not constitute campaign material. The decision also considered that the statement was not published by the state party infrastructure but through a neutral information service.
The appeal by Yes, Bulgaria highlights a broader debate over the use of state platforms for political messaging. Critics argue that the release of the Prime Minister’s comments via the official government website effectively served as an electoral campaign, providing an unfair advantage to Iotova. Supporters of the CEC’s ruling maintain that timing and the nature of the statement keep it within permissible bounds. The Bulgarian National Audit Office has been tasked to examine whether the monitoring of the 105 complaints should be pursued further.
While the Central Election Commission has clarified its position, the outcome of Yes, Bulgaria’s appeal remains uncertain. The appellate process will need to decide whether the commission’s refusal to rule on the merger of 105 complaints constitutes a breach of its duty to enforce election law. Until the appeal is adjudicated, questions linger over whether state‑run media can safely support political engagement without crossing into campaign territory. The legal debate will likely explore the limits of official communication channels in a rapidly evolving media landscape.
