Head of State Rumen Radev believes that the changes adopted at the last minute, on July 31, 2025, take away guarantees established in law when carrying out certain disposal transactions with property entrusted to the state. The sale of property by enterprises included in the so-called. prohibitive list under the Privatization and Post-Privatization Control Act (ZPSPK) is facilitated.
The requirement for the privatization sale of separate parts of commercial companies with more than 50 percent state participation in the capital, included in the list under Art. 3, para. 1 (the so-called prohibitive list) to be possible only after a decision by the National Assembly on a proposal from the Council of Ministers. In this regard, in his reasons, President Radev points out that these changes to the ZPSPC create conditions for concealing the political responsibility of the ruling majority. What is more worrying, however, is that they legalize the waiver of constitutional powers entrusted to the executive branch to manage and dispose of property, the responsibility of the state. In the long term, this would affect the assets of the companies themselves and render meaningless the prohibitive list in which they are nominally present.
With regard to the changes to the Investment Promotion Act and the Environmental Protection Act, Rumen Radev points out that he supports in principle the idea of explicitly introducing into the law accelerated administrative procedures for the implementation of significant projects intended to meet public needs in the public interest. However, this should be done under objective criteria, while observing the requirements of predictability and justification. By adding the definition of "object of strategic importance" to the Environmental Protection Act, the legislator creates an opportunity to bypass the entire process of developing and adopting specific strategies and achieving their statutory goals. The very purpose of the accelerated procedures for priority projects is being replaced, thus creating the possibility for them to be used beyond their legitimate purposes.
The full text of the reasons follows:
R E A T I O N
to return for new discussion in the National Assembly the provisions of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the State Property Act, adopted by the 51st National Assembly on July 31, 2025.
Dear Members of Parliament,
On July 31, 2025, the 51st National Assembly adopted the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the State Property Act (LAPS). The law thus adopted unites two different bills and many proposals made between the first and second votes.
Although not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, it can be said that the common goal of these different legislative proposals is to improve the effectiveness of measures to encourage investment, with a focus on the accelerated construction of sites of strategic importance for the development of Bulgaria. However, this goal cannot be achieved through legislative measures that are at the expense of the fundamental rights of citizens and contrary to the constitutional mandate that the state take care of the property entrusted to it in the interests of citizens and society.
1. Affecting guarantees established in law when carrying out certain disposal transactions with state property or with property of companies with state participation
With § 4, § 5 and § 6 of the Act on the State Property Act removes the explicit powers of the Minister of Defense to participate in the execution of administrative actions on the sale and exchange of properties - private state property, provided for management by the Ministry of Defense. This means that the transfer of properties provided for management by the Ministry of Defense (sales and exchanges) will be carried out in accordance with the general procedure - in accordance with the general procedures for the disposal of state property - a decision of the Council of Ministers (CoM) and/or an act of the regional governor. I share the idea of accelerating and relieving the administrative procedures in the Ministry of Defense regarding the disposal of properties that are no longer needed. However, the legislator goes to another extreme. The shared competence between the Minister of Defense and the CoM, which was imperatively established in Art. 45, para. 5, Art. 47, para. 3, Art. 48, para. 1 of the State Property Act, is removed. The main motive for the changes is for the Minister of Defense to focus entirely on the implementation of activities related to the implementation of infrastructure projects that are extremely important for national security and defense.
The participation of the Ministry of Defense and, above all, the "initiative to initiate the procedure" established in the law is not an end in itself of the law, but is associated with the need to assess the specific purpose of the properties, or the elimination of the need to use them for such purposes. It is logical that this assessment should be exercised by the competent body of the executive branch. The norms that the legislator repealed also took into account the factual situation, expressed in the scale of the property, the principal of which is the Ministry of Defense. Both management and transactions with its disposal require expertise, centralization and coherence. When exercising its powers under Art. 106 of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers cannot override the expert competence of its own members.
The Constitution and legislation allow for a number of restrictions on the right to property, the legitimate control of which is precisely the national security and defense of the country (Art. 7, para. 6 of the LDS). Symmetrical to this idea is that the transfer of state property managed by the Ministry of Defense should also be proportional, but to the no longer necessary implementation of the purposes for which this property was used. Therefore, the exclusion of the competent authority from this process makes the "refusal" of the state of its property disproportionate.
With § 13, item 2, b. „a“ of the LID LDS, the requirement for the privatization sale of separate parts of commercial companies with more than 50 percent state participation in the capital, included in the list under Art. 3, para. 1 (the so-called prohibitive list) of the Privatization and Post-Privatization Control Act (PPPCA), to be possible after a decision by the National Assembly on a proposal from the Council of Ministers. In addition, by virtue of the amendments, a universal initiative is provided to the bodies exercising the rights of the state in the capital of the specific company with over 50 percent direct or indirect participation in the capital, to make proposals for privatization of the specific objects under Art. 3, para. 3, item 3 of the PPCA. This will also apply in full to the separate parts of companies, the state participation in the capital of which is exercised by the Ministry of Defense (§ 13, item 1, b. „a“). Separate parts of property of commercial companies with more than 50 percent state participation will be sold only through electronic auction (§ 13, item 4, b. „a“).
In principle, I support the idea of expanding the possibilities for implementing procedures under the Public Procurement and Investment Act by expanding the scope of electronic auctions. This increases the transparency of the procedures, information and access of potential buyers. However, the imperative requirement that separate parts of the property of commercial companies with more than 50 percent state participation in the capital be sold only through the electronic platform is a continuation of the initially unlawful approach of removing transactions with such objects from the general regime for the sale of property of companies from the prohibited list.
I do not deny the right of the legislator to create new opportunities for privatization in relation to objects with no longer necessary, which over time deteriorate their condition and are a source of significant costs for the companies and the state. However, the cancellation makes it possible to sell separate parts of a given enterprise included in the prohibited list again, with the actual need for the sale being assessed primarily by the company's bodies themselves. I believe that by taking away the shared competence established in the law between the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers, deleting the powers of both bodies with respect to the sale of property by companies from the prohibited list, the legislator is underestimating the responsibility of these bodies in this process. There is a potential risk of abuse and arbitrariness, which will ultimately affect the public interest. In the long term, this would affect the assets of the companies themselves and render meaningless the prohibition list on which they are nominally present.
It is not surprising that these changes to the ZPSPK create conditions for concealing the political responsibility of the ruling majority. What is more worrying, however, is that they legalize the waiver of constitutional powers entrusted to the executive branch to manage and dispose of property, the responsibility of the state. Art. 18, para. 6 of the Constitution provides for the general obligation that state property is managed and administered in the interest of citizens and society. The Council of Ministers, in turn, is assigned its main authority to organize the management of state property in the implementation of the country's domestic policy (Art. 106, in conjunction with Art. 105, para. 1 of the Constitution). It applies not only to the two types of state property (public and private), but also covers its other rights and obligations that are monetarily assessed (Decision No. 19 of 1993 under c. d. No. 11/93). These commitments of the state in one way or another also apply to the property owned by commercial companies in which the state participates. This is because the economic activity of a significant part of these entities is of strategic importance for society and the economy. It is the public interest that is the constitutional criterion in the management and disposal of this property. The withdrawal of the state, in the person of the National Assembly, and especially of the leading body of the executive branch, in relation to transactions with separate parts of such companies is in itself an abdication of its constitutionally established obligations to guarantee the public interest.
With § 14 of the Act on the Law on Medical Institutions, an amendment is made to the Law on Medical Institutions, by virtue of which, by an act of the Council of Ministers, without a tender or competition, it will be possible to establish limited property rights for consideration on properties - public and private state property in favor of state medical institutions. The adopted provision contradicts both the provisions of the Medical Institutions Act and the established regulatory regimes in the Medical Institutions Act. In practice, the legislator creates grounds for commercial companies to acquire rights to public state-owned properties outside the explicitly established procedure and grounds in the Medical Institutions Act, without requirements for a competitive procedure and publicity. The adopted text itself does not provide clarity regarding the control over the entitled entities, specifically whether the established limited property rights will be used solely for medical activities or could be a reason for circumventing the purpose thus set, in the direction of another commercial activity, ostensibly related to “patient care“ (§ 14 of the Medical Institutions Act). The text is not consistent with the principle of the rule of law (Art. 4, Para. 1 of the Constitution), and its application hides potential violations of Art. 17, Para. 4, Art. 18, Para. 6 and Art. 19, Para. 2 of the Constitution.
2. Creating opportunities for abuse of procedures for accelerated implementation of significant investment projects
With § 12 and § 15 of the Investment Promotion Act, amendments are made to the Investment Promotion Act and the Environmental Protection Act. They shorten the deadlines for the administration to pronounce in relation to certain investment projects, introduce the principle of tacit consent, limit the court instances in proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act, and expand the definition of a “object of strategic importance“. I vetoed identical amendments to the same law, adopted by the 49th National Assembly in 2024 (Decree No. 124 of 29.04.2024, published in the State Gazette, issue 38 of 30.04.2024), which was not overcome. I fully support the reasoning regarding the unconstitutionality of the amendments, including failure to comply with the rules of the legislative procedure.
I welcome the majority that, unlike the previous amendments to the law, an explicit clarification was created that the accelerated procedures for the administration and tacit consent will not apply to the design and construction of solar photovoltaic converters and wind energy generators within the meaning of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Art. 22k, para. 4). However, the changes to the LNI and ZEPA, adopted by the 51st National Assembly, are even more worrying because the legislator introduces an alternative listing of the sites (cf. Art. 22k, first sentence of the LNI, cf. the amendments to Art. 88, para. 4, Art. 93, para. 10, Art. 99, para. 9 of the ZEPA, where the union “and“ is replaced by “or“). In essence, the scope of the various investment projects to which the exceptions regarding the shortened terms for the administration's action, the principle of tacit consent and the limited judicial appeal will apply is expanded. Unfortunately, this does not create conditions for the accelerated implementation of the truly priority projects, but rather provides opportunities for subjective circumvention of the rules.
In principle, I support the idea of explicitly introducing into the law accelerated administrative procedures for the implementation of significant projects intended to satisfy public needs in the public interest. However, this should be done under objective criteria, in compliance with the requirements of foreseeability and justification. On the one hand, the provision of Art. 22k, para. 1 covers a heterogeneous list of objects, which allows the exception regulated in the law to be abused. These are objects that have a different basis and purpose, a different implementation period, a different territorial scope, but nevertheless receive identical priority status.
Next, there is a lack of certainty regarding the specific proceedings and acts to which the thus regulated hypothesis of “shorter“ terms will be applied. This also applies to the way in which a legal presumption of tacit consent is introduced in the event of the body failing to issue a decision within the time limit (Art. 22k, para. 2). An obstacle is created for administrative bodies to legally apply the unclear rules of Art. 22k - 22l.
I would like to take this opportunity to recall again that the European acts motivating the amendment in question require that the environmental impact assessment be carried out in accordance with the specifics of each individual case (Art. 3 of Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU).
With § 15, items 1 - 4 of the Environmental Protection Act, amendments and supplements are made to Art. 88, para. 4, Art. 93, para. 10, Art. 95, Art. 99, Para. 9 of the Environmental Protection Act, which provide that in the case of objects of national importance or objects of strategic importance, certain categories of legal disputes shall be resolved only in one court instance. I have repeatedly maintained that the speed of legal proceedings cannot be at the expense of the principle of legality and at the expense of the rights of citizens (Decree No. 175 of 07.08.2017 promulgated, State Gazette, No. 65 of 11.08.2017; Decree No. 73 of 15.05.2025, promulgated, State Gazette, No. 41 of 20.05.2025).
With § 15, item 5 of the Act on the Environmental Protection Act supplements the definition of a “object of strategic importance in the Environmental Protection Act, thus creating an opportunity for the legislator to bypass the entire process of developing and adopting specific strategies and their statutory objectives. The National Assembly will be able to grant a specific object the status of an object of strategic importance for each specific case. Although its material competence for this power is initially unclear, its implementation will lead ex lege to a guaranteed advantage in the law regarding shortened deadlines for the administration to pronounce and limited access to a court – only to one court instance. Thus, in practice, the National Assembly seizes powers simultaneously in the executive and judicial branches. By replacing the very purpose of the objects under § 1, item 76 of the EPA, the legislator directly changes the scope of application of the accelerated procedures under the EPA and the LNI and creates the possibility for them to be used beyond their legitimate purposes.
Dear Members of Parliament,
Based on the reasons stated, I exercise my right under Art. 101, para. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria to return for new discussion § 4, § 5, § 6, § 12, § 13, § 14 and § 15 of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the State Property Law, adopted by the 51st National Assembly on July 31, 2025.