At its session on 18.11.2025, the Constitutional Court ruled with an interpretative decision on a constitutional case reported by Judge Krasimir Vlahov, BNR reported.
The decision is in connection with the refusal of former Speaker of the National Assembly Natalia Kiselova to submit for consideration President Radev's proposal for a referendum asking whether Bulgaria should join the eurozone from January 1, 2026.
Mandatory interpretation upon a request for a referendum coming from those entitled by law to such a request.
On the basis of Art. 149, para. 1, item 1 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decided that:
"The Speaker of the National Assembly does not have the authority to assess the requirements established by law under which a national referendum is admissible, and to reject a proposal made by a subject authorized by law. This authority, by virtue of Art. 84, item 5 of the Constitution, belongs solely to the National Assembly".
In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court notes that according to the Basic Law, the people are the sole source of state power and it is exercised by them directly or through the bodies provided for in the Constitution. Therefore, no member of the people, and in particular the Speaker of the National Assembly, has the right to exercise power alone and decide on issues that the Basic Law has assigned solely to the collective body elected by the voters and exercising power on their behalf.
This also applies to the authority of the Parliament under Art. 84, item 5 of the Constitution to take a decision to hold a national referendum.
The Court points out that the exclusive power of the National Assembly to adopt a decision to hold a national referendum by its nature implies its exclusive competence to assess all the requirements provided for in the law regarding the admissibility of holding such a referendum, such as the issues that can be resolved through a national referendum when the Parliament is referred to it by the subjects authorized to do so by law.
According to the Court, this assessment is not simply a matter of procedure, but of constitutional competence.
The Court draws attention to the fact that, unlike the acts of the National Assembly, which are subject to constitutional review, the sole acts of its President are excluded from this review, which was also taken into account in the ruling on the admission of the President's request.
For this reason, the issuance of a sole act by the President of the Parliament, which essentially blocks the exercise of the exclusive constitutional competence of the nationwide representative institution is intolerable from the point of view of the Basic Law, because it practically bypasses the established procedure for control over the acts of the National Assembly.
As a result, the possibility of checking compliance with the principles and provisions of the Constitution is thwarted, and this risks casting doubt on and even depriving its supremacy in the exercise of state power of content.
12 constitutional judges participated in the session.