COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Luxembourg, 13.7.2022
SWD(2022) 502 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
2022 Rule of Law Report
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
2022 Rule of Law Report
The rule of law situation in the European Union
{COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} -
{SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} -
{SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} -
{SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} -
{SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} -
{SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} -
{SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} -
{SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} -
{SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0500 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
ABSTRACT
Reforms in Bulgaria in the area of justice and anti-corruption were first followed by the
Commission under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) and are currently
monitored under the Rule of Law Mechanism.
The Government has committed, in the context of the Bulgarian Recovery and Resilience
Plan, to establish an effective mechanism for the accountability and criminal liability of the
Prosecutor General and his/her deputies, as well as a judicial review of prosecutorial
decisions not to open an investigation. This would address longstanding concerns referred in
the previous editions of the Rule of Law Report and in the CVM. There are increasing
concerns related to the functioning of the Supreme Judicial Council and the need to address
its composition is all the more important. Concerns related to the Inspectorate to the Supreme
Judicial Council remain. The absence of regular competition for the promotion of
magistrates, combined with an extensive use of secondments, risks to affect the independence
of magistrates. A legislative reform has abolished the specialised judicial authorities, while
providing for the reappointment of the relevant magistrates to ordinary courts and prosecution
offices, with safeguards to protect judicial independence and procedural rights. Challenges
remain in the area of digitalisation of justice. Administrative justice continues to perform well
in terms of efficiency.
The Anti-Corruption Commission has continued to perform its activities, with envisaged
reforms aiming at restructuring it to improve its capacity towards investigation of corruption
cases. A solid track-record of final convictions in high-level cases of corruption is still
lacking. The National Strategy for Prevention and Countering Corruption, as well as the
general provisions for the integrity of the public administration continue to be implemented,
including provisions for specific sectors and a mechanism for the declaration and verification
of assets. Lobbying and protection of whistleblowers are still not properly regulated, although
there are plans to address that. Sector-specific corruption risks such as management of budget
funds and control activities, including procurement were identified during the COVID-19
pandemic.
As regards media freedom and pluralism, the legal framework, based on a set of
constitutional safeguards and legislative measures, guarantees freedom of expression and
editorial independence. The lack of a clear regulatory framework to ensure transparency in
the allocation of state advertising remains a concern, despite some measures having been
taken to improve transparency. As regards media ownership transparency, reflections are
ongoing about a more effective enforcement of media ownership obligations. Legal
safeguards exist regarding the independence of public service media, but appear to be
insufficient; a revision of the law is being considered in order to strengthen the independence
of public service media and define in more detail the public service remit and the related
financing. The professional environment of journalists has slightly improved since the last
year but issues such as access to public information, working conditions and strategic
lawsuits, remain.
The establishment of a Post-monitoring Mechanism to accompany future CVM related
reform is progressing well after a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. New rules
have been adopted by the Parliament to improve the law-making process. The emergency
regime related to the COVID-19 pandemic has ended. A Council for Civil Society
Development has been set up with the objective of assisting civil society, which will include
drafting and implementation of policies covering Civil Society Organisations themselves.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to recalling the commitments made under the national Recovery and Resilience
Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system and the anti-corruption framework and
the remaining commitments under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, it is
recommended to Bulgaria to:
 Ensure timely ordinary competitions for promotion to avoid long-term secondment of
judges to fill in vacant positions, taking into account European standards on secondment
of judges.
 Advance with the legislative amendments aiming at improving the functioning of the
Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council and avoiding the risk of political influence,
in particular by involving judicial bodies in the selection of its members.
 Take steps to adapt the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council, taking into account
European standards on Councils for the Judiciary.
 Continue the implementation of measures to improve the integrity of the specific sectors
of the public administration, including measures tailored to the police and the judiciary.
 Ensure that the institutional reforms of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the
specialised judicial authorities lead to an improved effectiveness of investigations and a
robust track-record of prosecution and final judgments in high-level corruption cases.
 Improve transparency in the allocation of state advertising, in particular with regard to
state advertising contracted through intermediaries, such as media agencies.
3
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established at the accession to the
European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Bulgaria’s continued efforts to
reform its judiciary and step up the fight against corruption and organised crime1
. In line with
the decision setting up the mechanism and as underlined by the Council, the CVM ends when
all the benchmarks applying to Bulgaria are satisfactorily met2
. The Commission’s latest
CVM report, adopted in October 2019, recorded that Bulgaria had made a number of further
commitments and concluded that the progress made under the CVM was sufficient to meet
Bulgaria’s commitments made at the time of its accession to the EU. As the Commission also
underlined, Bulgaria will need to continue working consistently on translating the
commitments specified in the report into concrete legislation and on continued
implementation. Said implementation continues to be monitored in the context of the Rule of
Law Mechanism, and more concretely, in the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report.
I. JUSTICE SYSTEM
The judicial system of the Republic of Bulgaria3
includes a total number of 182 courts which
are ordinary and specialised. As a general rule, the ordinary courts hear cases in three
instances, with the system of these courts comprising 113 district courts, 28 regional courts
and 5 courts of appeal. The specialised courts include military and administrative courts. The
Supreme Court of Cassation is the court of last instance in cases heard by ordinary and
military courts, while for administrative cases, the Supreme Administrative Court is the court
of last instance. The judiciary also includes the Prosecutor’s Office. The Constitutional Court
of Bulgaria reviews constitutionality of laws and gives interpretative decisions4
. The
Prosecutor’s Office has a unified structure and is headed by the Prosecutor General5
. Bulgaria
participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC)
is the highest administrative authority in the Bulgarian judiciary. It is responsible for
managing the judiciary and ensuring its independence. Judges, prosecutors and investigators6
are appointed, promoted, transferred and dismissed by their respective chamber (Judges’ or
Prosecutors’) of the SJC7
. In addition to the SJC, activities of magistrates are supervised by
1
Following the Council conclusions of 17 October 2006 (13339/06), the Mechanism was established by
Commission Decision of 13 December 2006, OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 58.
2
Council Conclusions on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, 12 December 2017.
3
For a description of the judicial structure see e.g. CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of the judicial
systems in the EU Member States.
4
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 2.
5
Art. 126 to 128 from the Constitution.
6
Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2019)031), para. 13-14: The majority of the investigators are police
officers, procedurally supervised by the prosecutors; a smaller number of investigators have the status of
magistrates and work in the National Investigative Service or in investigative units which are part of
prosecutors’ offices at regional level. Procedurally, they are all under the supervision of prosecutors.
Procedural supervision means that all decision by an investigator can be overturned by a supervising
prosecutor. The supervising prosecutor is, in turn, subject to a supervision by a hierarchically superior
prosecutor, up to the level of the Prosecutor General.
7
The Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council has 25 members. The Supreme Judicial Council is composed
by a Judicial Chamber and a Prosecutorial Chamber. The Judicial Chamber is composed of six judges
elected by judges, six members elected by Parliament and the presidents of the two highest courts, who are
ex officio members. The Prosecutorial Chamber is composed of four prosecutors and one investigating
magistrate elected by their peers, five members elected by Parliament, and the Prosecutor General, who is an
ex officio member.
4
the Inspectorate. The Supreme Bar Council is an independent and self-governing body
established by law8
.
Independence
The level of perceived judicial independence in Bulgaria continues to be low among the
general public and is now very low among companies. Overall, 31% of the general
population and 28% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to
be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20229
. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the
perceived judicial independence among both the general public and companies has
consistently decreased in the last years, although it remains higher than in 2016 (23% for the
general public and 21% for companies). Both figures have decreased in comparison to 2021
(32% for the general public and 43% for companies).
Provisions for an effective accountability and criminal liability mechanism for the
Prosecutor General and his/her deputies are planned within the framework of the
Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) related reforms10. The lack of a possibility for an
effective criminal investigation of the Prosecutor General and his/her deputies has been a
long-standing issue, which was raised not only by the European Commission11
but also by the
European Court of Human Rights12
and the Council of Europe13
. As pointed out in previous
reports14
, the combination of the powers held by the Prosecutor General15
and his/her position
in the Supreme Judicial Council16
result in a considerable influence within the Prosecutor’s
8
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 3.
9
Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised
as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%).
10
They will take place by Q2 2023.
11
See 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, pp. 3-5;
Progress report Bulgaria 2019, COM(2019)498, p. 6.
12
ECtHR, judgment of 5 November 2009, Kolevi v. Bulgaria, paras. 121-127, 129, 135 and 136.
13
Council of Europe, Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments, Committee of
Ministers Decision CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-6 of 10 June 2022 and CM/Notes/1436/H46-6 of 8-10 June
2022, Committee of Ministers Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-8 of 2 December 2021 and
CM/Notes/1419/H46-8 of 30 November- 2 December 2021, CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6 of 11 March
2021 and CM/Notes/1398/H46-6 of 9-11 March; Committee of Ministers Decision
CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-9 of 1-3 September 2020 and CM/Notes/1377bis/H46-9 of 3 September
2020. See also Committee of Ministers (Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)367 of 5 December 2019 and
CM/Notes/1362/H46-6 of 3-5 December 2019; Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2019)031).
14
See 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 3-5.
15
The Prosecutor General may annul or amend any decision taken by any prosecutor which has not been
reviewed by a judge. Furthermore, he may second prosecutors without their consent, for a period of 3
months within a calendar year, and issue written instructions to prosecutors, concerning only the application
of the law, including in individual cases. The Prosecutor General also has significant powers over the
prosecutors who are the heads of offices at district and provincial level.
16
In the Prosecutorial Chamber, where the five members elected by Parliament are currently also prosecutors
or investigating magistrates, all members are subordinates to the Prosecutor General, the ex officio member
and chairman, who plays a decisive role in relation to their career and disciplinary proceedings. In the
Plenary, the prosecutorial members have been noted to usually vote as a block supporting the Prosecutor
General’s proposals or position. See also Art. 16 (3) and (4) of the JSA - The Prosecutors’ chamber (11
members) is presided by the ex officio member the Prosecutor General and it consists of five members
elected by the Parliament, four by prosecutors and one by investigators elected by their respective peers; Art.
30(1) and 32 of the JSA - The Plenary of the SJC (25 members) is comprised of the members of both
aforementioned chambers and is presided by the Minister of Justice, who does not have the right to a vote.
The plenary of the SJC decides upon the draft budget, disciplinary removal from office and proposals for the
5
Office as well as potentially within the Supreme Judicial Council (both in its Prosecutorial
Chamber and its Plenary) and within the magistracy17
. On 14 October 2021, Bulgaria
submitted its RRP to the Commission18
. The European Commission adopted a positive
assessment of Bulgaria’s RRP on 7 April 2022. On 3 May 2022, the Council adopted the
implementing decisions on the approval of the plan. As part of the rule of law-related reforms
in the plan, the authorities committed to introduce an effective mechanism for the
accountability and criminal liability of the Prosecutor General and his/her deputies. The
mechanism would include guarantees for the independent character of the investigation,
including by introducing measures that would allow the suspension of the Prosecutor General
and his/her deputies in the event of criminal proceedings against them, as well as including
the selection by the Supreme Judicial Council of a judge19
appointed to the position of
prosecutor acting as an investigating magistrate. The envisaged reform would also include
safeguards to ensure the career stability and independence of that judge20
in accordance with
the decisions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe21
and the opinions of
the Venice Commission22
. Furthermore, the Bulgarian Government committed to cooperate
with the Human Rights Directorate of the Council of Europe and to consult the Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe on the draft amendments prior to their submission to
the National Assembly. In addition, in view of limiting the potential influence of the
Prosecutor General within the Supreme Judicial Council, the Government has also committed
to exclude the representatives of the prosecution and and investigation services from being
nominated as members elected by the Parliament to the Council23
. Finally, as regards the
increased accountability of the Prosecutor General, the Government has committed in the
RRP to set up procedures for hearings of the Prosecutor General, as well as annual reporting
obligations on corruption related matters.
appointment of the Presidents of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the
Prosecutor General (Art. 30(2) of the JSA). The two chambers take decisions on appointment, promotion,
relocation and release from office, matters related to acquisition and restoration of tenure and decide on
disciplinary sanctions (Art. 30(5) of the JSA); voting majority for decisions of the Judges’ chamber are
described in Art. 33 para 4 of the JSA.
17
Council of Europe, Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments,
CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-8 of 2 December 2021 and CM/Notes/1419/H46-8 of 30 November- 2
December 2021, CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6 of 9-11 March 2021. See also the 2021 and 2020 Rule of
Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria.
18
One component of the plan is devoted to addressing challenges to the ‘business environment’ and aims to
increase the overall resilience of the Bulgarian economy by addressing the concerns with the rule of law,
corruption, money laundering and effectiveness of the public administration. Once approved by the Council
of the European Union by means of an implementing decision, the reforms and investments under the RRP
as set out in the annex to the implementing decision become legally binding.
19
According to the milestone set in the RRP as regards the Prosecutor General, that judge should have a
minimum professional qualification and experience in criminal justice, and would be selected using an
independent random selection mechanism.
20
Written contribution from the Minister of Justice in the context of the country visit: the “judge will not be
able to be removed by the SJC, the Prosecutor General will not be able to intervene and instruct him on the
investigation, and while it is under way, the Prosecutor General will be suspended from office The career
development of the investigating judge will be protected, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. The
investigation will be able to cover both actions and inactions of the Prosecutor General”.
21
Committee of Ministers Decision CM/Del/Dec(2022)1436/H46-6 of 10 June 2022, CM/Notes/1436/H46-6
of 8-10 June 2022 and Analysis of the general measures in the Kolevi case, H/Exec(2022)8 of 24 May 2022
22
See footnotes 14 and 15.
23
Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit, p.5. See also Venice
Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2019)031), para 27; CM/Notes/1419/H46-8 of 30 November- 2 December
2021; and CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-9 of 9-11 March 2021, para. 9.
6
The Constitutional Court confirmed the right of the Minister of Justice to request to the
Supreme Judicial Council the early termination of the mandate of the Prosecutor
General. On 8 February 2022, the Constitutional Court declared constitutional the possibility
for the Minister of Justice to ask for the early termination of the mandate24
of the Prosecutor
General (and also of the Presidents of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme
Administrative Court). On 22 July 2021, the interim Minister of Justice filed a request to the
Supreme Judicial Council for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General25
. The Plenary of the
Supreme Judicial Council voted the request of the Minister as inadmissable and considered
that the Minister did not have the power to file such a request26
. Following this, the Minister
of Justice challenged the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council before the Supreme
Administrative Court and requested clarifications from the Constitutional Court on the
powers of the Minister of Justice to request the early dismissal of the Prosecutor General27
.
The Constitutional Court confirmed that the Minister of Justice has such power to request the
early dismissal of the Prosecutor General28
. On 2 March 2022, the new Minister of Justice
filed a new request for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General29
.
The introduction of judicial review against decisions of prosecutors not to open an
investigation is envisaged. In the adopted RRP, the Government has committed to introduce
a mechanism for judicial review of any decisions of prosecutors not to open an investigation.
As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report30
, this is a long-standing concern and the envisaged
measures would address the recommendations from the Council of Europe31
. On 2 December
2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe reiterated the recommendation32
but also welcomed that the authorities committed under the RRP to work together with the
Council of Europe in order to develop the legislation for this mechanism33
. In addition,
arrangements would be made to avoid an excessive additional workload for courts and
prosecutors34
. The reform is expected to be adopted by mid-2023.
Concerns over the functioning and composition of the Supreme Judicial Council have
increased, also in the context of disciplinary proceedings. The situation mentioned in the
202035
and 202136
Rule of Law Reports, with the judges elected by their peers37
not forming
24
Pursuant to Art. 176.5 in conjunction of Art. 173.3 of the JSA, for the circumstances outlined in Art. 129.3
point 5 of the Constitution.
25
The power would stem from Art. 130c of the Constitution – “The Minister of Justice shall be able to make
proposals for appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer and release from office of judges, prosecutors and
investigating magistrates.” See also Plenary of the SJC, Protocol No.14 of 2021.
26
See Plenary of the SJC, Protocol No.14 of 2021.
27
Art. 130c of the Constitution. This article also includes the power to request the early dismissal of the
Presidents of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court.
28
Constitutional Court Decision No. 1 of 2022/Case No. 17 from 2021: “… it should be assumed that although
the Minister of Justice does not have the right to vote in the Supreme Judicial Council, this does not deprive
him of the opportunity to propose issues within the competence of the Supreme Judicial Council and
therefore does not preclude proposals for engagement of responsibility or ascertainment of other facts under
art. 129, para 3 of the Constitution and in respect of the three senior magistrates…”.
29
See Plenary of the SJC, Agenda No.8 of 2022.
30
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 5.
31
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 3 March 2015, S.Z. v. Bulgaria, 29263/12.
32
See CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-8, para. 10, CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6, para. 3;
CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-9, para. 4; CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-6.
33
See CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-8, para. 4.
34
In the context of the RRP, the authorities committed to adopt arrangements to avoid an excessive additional
workload for courts and prosecutors, which will be clarified in consultation with the Council of Europe.
35
See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 3-5.
7
a majority in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), remains unchanged38
. Since 1 July 202139
,
the concerns have increased as the SJC functions with only four peer-elected judges40
due to
the resignation of two peer-elected members41
. The same voting practice of the Plenary of the
Supreme Judicial Council presented in the previous report42
continues43
to underline the
decisive role44
of the Prosecutor General in the SJC45
. The concerns regarding the
composition and functioning of the SJC have been reiterated by the European Parliament’s
ad-hoc delegation to Bulgaria46
, the Council of Europe47
, the UN Universal Periodic
Review48
and various stakeholders49
. In addition, similar concerns over the functioning of the
SJC have arisen in the context of disciplinary proceedings. On 19 October 2021, the
European Court of Human Rigths50
issued a decision regarding disciplinary proceedings
against a judge before the SJC. While the Court confirms that the disciplinary proceedings
before the SJC comprised a number of procedural guarantees51
, it considered that the
36
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 5-7.
37
The ex officio judges do not count as peer elected judges. - Venice Commission opinion (CDL-
AD(2020)035), para. 44.
38
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para 27;
Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)035), para. 44; JSA, Art. 16(3) and (4) – Since the Judicial
Chamber (14 members) is presided by either one of the ex officio members (the President of the Supreme
Court of Cassation or the President of the Supreme Administrative Court) a majority can be reached, both in
the Plenary of the SJC and the Judicial Chamber, without the votes of the judges elected by their peers.
39
See Plenary of the SJC, Protocol No. 12 of 2021.
40
The total number of members at the SJC is currently 22 (Judicial Chamber is with 12 members;
Prosecutorial Chamber is with 10 members) – there is one vacancy for a Parliament elected member of the
Prosecutorial Chamber since January 2020 and two vacancies for peer elected members of the Judicial
Chamber since July 2021.
41
After a call to all members of the SJC to follow the two-peer elected members and resign, which did not
have any effect, in October 2021, a majority of judges decided not to participate in two attempts for the
election of new peer-elected members, which resulted in unsuccessful elections (Statement of the Bulgarian
Judges Association of 23 June 2021). About only 20% of all judges in the country took part in the elections.
No new elections were scheduled because the mandate of the current SJC ends in October 2022 and the
procedures for election of the new members have started in early 2022. See also Art. 29k, para. 2 and 3 of
the JSA.
42
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.6: for important
decisions, members from the Prosecutors’ chamber seem to vote in block, together with the Parliament
elected members of the Judges’ chamber. See Committee of Minister of the Council of Europe
(CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6). See also from the meetings of the Plenary of the Supreme Judicial
Council: Protocol No. 14 of 2021 on the vote for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General; Protocol No. 16 of
2021 on renovating the summer resorts of the Prosecutor’s Office.
43
See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 5-6. See also
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 3-4.
44
Due to the position of the Prosecutor General within the Prosecutor’s Office and his role as a chairman of the
Prosecutors’ Chamber, he has a decisive role in the Prosecutors’ Chamber and an important influence in the
Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council.
45
Art. 16 (3) and (4) of the JSA - The Prosecutors’ Chamber (11 members) is presided by the ex officio
member the Prosecutor General and it consists of five members elected by the Parliament, four by
prosecutors and one by investigators elected by their respective peers.
46
Mission Report following the ad-hoc delegation to Slovakia and Bulgaria – 21-24 September 2021
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, p. 15.
47
Committee of Ministers decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6. See also Venice Commission opinion
(CDL-AD(2020)035), para. 40.
48
Contributions from UN OHCHR Regional Office for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 1.
49
Contributions from Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, European Association of Judges, and Bulgarian
Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
50
ECtHR, judgment of 19 October 2021, Todorova v. Bulgaria, 40072/13.
51
ECtHR, judgment of 19 October 2021, Todorova v. Bulgaria, 40072/13, para. 109.
8
disciplinary proceedings conducted by the SJC and the sanctions imposed had amounted to
an interference with the exercise of the magistrate’s right to freedom of expression which had
not been “necessary in a democratic society” for pursuing legitimate aims set out in Article
10 of the Convention52
. In addition, in 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled
several decisions of the SJC imposing disciplinary sanctions on judges or prosecutors for
insufficient reasoning or procedural irregularities53
. Addressing the issue of the SJC’s
composition54
by aligning it to European standards, is all the more important in view of the
forthcoming end of the current mandates of SJC members55
.
Concerns remain regarding political influence and the functioning of the Inspectorate to
the Supreme Judicial Council (ISJC). As mentioned in previous Rule of Law Reports56
,
currently the Inspectorate oversees the activity of the judiciary, assesses the integrity and
potential conflicts of interest of magistrates, and is responsible for proposing any opening of
disciplinary proceedings regarding magistrates to the SJC. The ISJC consists of an Inspector
General and ten inspectors, who are independent and elected by the National Assembly57
.
The working group that was set up in December 2020 and tasked with addressing concerns
regarding the risk of political influence on the Inspectorate58
has finalised its work59
,
identifying two groups of proposals for legislative amendments. One, needing further work
within the framework of the current working group60
. The other, would require a longer
period for implementation, which is why, no amendement has been tabled in Parliament
alleviating these concerns. These concerns are aggravated by the fact that the Inspectorate is
still working on the basis of an expired mandate61
. In February 2022, the Ministry of Justice
asked representatives of the judiciary, professional legal organisations, as well as the
52
ECtHR, judgment of 19 October 2021, Todorova v. Bulgaria, 40072/13, paras. 164 and 173.
53
Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12.
54
See Art. 130 and Art. 130a paras. 3 and 4 of the Constitution.
55
The term of the current SJC runs until October 2022 and the procedures for election of new members have
already begun.
56
See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.8; 2020 Rule
of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.8.
57
Art. 132a of the Constitution.
58
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p. 3: as part of the
previously mentioned Government’s Action Plan, in December 2020, the Minister of Justice established a
working group tasked with drafting legislative amendments to address the Inspectorate related issues
identified as a concern by the 2020 Rule of Law report. See also Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2017)018),
para. 58.
59
Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria, pp. 5 and 6.
60
Formed Order No. LS-13-88/21.12.2020 of the Minister of Justice with the task of drafting a comprehensive
draft amendments to the Judiciary Act.
61
The procedure for election of a new Inspectors and Inspector General was supposed to start no later than 9
February 2020 for the Inspector General and no later than 14 January 2020 for the Inspectors (JSA, Art.
44(1)). Such procedure has still not been initiated to this date. A similar situation occurred also during the
mandate of the previous Chief Inspector who operated under a de facto 2 year extension of the mandate. To
be noted that other institutions which are also in similar situation: five other independent and supervisory
authorities also operate on the basis of an expired mandate: Commission for protection of personal data,
mandate expired since 16 April 2019; Commission for consumer protection, mandate expired since 27
March 2020; Bulgarian National Bank, mandate expired since July 2021; Fiscal Council expired since
November 2021; National Social Security Institute Committee for disclosing the documents and announcing
affiliation of Bulgarian citizens to the State Security and intelligence services of the Bulgarian National
Army, mandate expired since July 2017 (Written contribution from the Bulgarian Institute for Legal
Initiatives in the context of the country visit).
9
academic legal community to submit proposals regarding the optimisation62
of the
organisation and activities of the SJC and the ISJC in the context of the established European
and international standards63
for the activities of these types of bodies64
. The Plenary of the
Supreme Administrative Court65
made a request to the Constitutional Court concerning the
interpretation of the constitutional provisions regarding the ISJC66
. That request was declared
admissible on 17 May 2022 and is now pending.
The absence of regular competitions for the promotion of magistrates, combined with
an extensive use of secondments, continue to raise serious concerns. As underlined in the
2021 Rule of Law Report67
, while magistrates may be promoted only through a competition,
in practice only one competition for the promotion of judges has been completed in the last
four years68
. The absence of regular competitions has resulted in an extensive use of
secondments69
. European standards highlight that promotions should be based on merit70
and
secondments should happen with consent and on a temporary basis71
, and only in exceptional
circumstances72
. A widespread use of secondments may negatively impact on seconded
magistrates, if they are faced with the risk of a termination of their secondment against their
will; this increases the power of the administrative heads if they are competent to decide on
secondments and their termination73
, which may create situations of dependence74
. The lack
of regular merit-based promotions combined with an extensive use of secondments therefore
62
Improving the procedures for competitions, selection of administrative heads and attestation in order to
speed them up and ensure objective results; refining the procedures for disciplinary proceedings in the light
of practical experience; increasing the effectiveness of the training activities of the National Institute of
Justice.
63
Opinion of the Venice Commission on the Judiciary Law from 2017 (CDL-AD(2017)018; Opinion of the
Venice Commission on the draft amendments to the Constitution from 2015 (CDL-AD(2015)022); Opinions
of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE).
64
Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria, p. 8.
65
Constitutional Court Case No. 7 of 29 April 2022
66
In particular, the request touches upon the question whether the Inspector General and the Inspectors should
continue work after the end of their mandate until new holders of office are appointed by the Parliament at
these positions.
67
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, pp. 6 and 7, footnote 74.
See also website of the SJC, register for seconded magistrates which for 2022 recorded a number of 217
seconded judges (97 of them are seconded for more than 24 months).
68
Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation; Contribution from Bulgarian Institute for Legal
Initiatives in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria.
69
The lack of competitions has been reported by civil, criminal and administrative judges – Information
received from Bulgarian Judges Association, President of the Supreme Administrative Court; President of
the Supreme Court of Cassation; Specialised Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the country visit to
Bulgaria. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria p. 9 on
the number of seconded judges which kept increasing and on the number of long secondments (with
consent) to fill in higher-ranking positions. See also written contribution from the Supreme Court of
Cassation in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria, topic 3, p.1, stating that “In the past period no
development has been achieved in the staffing of the Supreme Court of Cassation, but on the contrary – there
is a clear trend of regression, as the number of seconded persons is gradually increasing”.
70
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para 44.
71
As regards EU law requirements, see CJEU, Judgment of 16 November 2021, Prokuratura Rejonowa w
Minsku Mazowieckim, Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19, EU:C:2021:931, point 72.
72
Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2017)018), paras. 86 and 87.
73
The Judicial Chamber can also terminate prematurely secondments when during the secondment there are
violations of the terms and conditions provided in the JSA, or in case of necessity for staffing the body of the
judiciary from which the judge is seconded. See Art. 30(5), point 18 of the JSA.
74
Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria, p.4
of topic 3.
10
risks to affect judicial independence. Some practices have been developed within the
judiciary to circumscribe the powers of the administrative heads in this respect75
, but only
regular and timely competitions based on merit would effectively avert the abovementioned
risk76
.
Legislative amendments have been introduced to put an end to the special promotion
regime for magistrates in the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council and the
Supreme Judical Council. As to the automatic promotion of magistrates described in the
2020 Rule of Law Report77
, on 14 April 2022 the same law adopted for the closure of the
specialised judicial authorities78
amending the Judicial System Act also removed the specific
promotion mechanism for SJC and ISJC members79
by ending the possibility for these
members to be reinstated at the end of their term of office in a higher position as judge,
prosecutor or investigator than that held before the election80
. Furthermore, concerns related
to the automatic promotion of judges within the envisaged judicial map reform did not
materialise in a draft law81
.
The Supreme Judicial Council adopted criteria for deciding on additional remuneration
of magistrates, aiming at limiting the discretionary powers of court presidents. In order
to address the Council of Europe’s concerns regarding the broad discretionary powers of the
Court Presidents for allocating additional remuneration of magistrates82
, in November 2021
the SJC set out criteria for additional remunerations for judges and prosecutors (except for the
specialised judicial authorities83
) linked to the degree of workload of courts, prosecutor’s
offices, and district investigation departments84
.
75
Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria: the
selection of judges to be seconded is increasingly carried out by the plenaries of the court’s colleges, which
propose to the administrative head of office the judge for secondment. In addition, courts are drafting rules
for objective criteria for secondment.
76
The power of court presidents, to impose a disciplinary measure (under Art. 327 of the JSA, court presidents
may draw the attention of judges, prosecutors and investigators to the violations committed by them in the
formation and movement of cases or in the organisation of their work) was further increased with respect to
single judges due to the practice of the ISJC to recommend the issuing of less severe disciplinary sanctions
(e.g. reprimand). In addition, they can also decide to refer the matter to the SJC, asking the latter to open a
disciplinary proceeding aiming at imposing a more relevant sanction (Written contribution from the ISJC in
the context of the country visit to Bulgaria).
77
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.8-9.
78
Adopted on 14 April 2022, and promulgated on 26 April 2022.
79
See 2021 Rule of Law Report p. 10
80
Written contribution from the ISJC in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria, p.1.
81
The proposal issued by the SJC was strongly criticised by stakeholders (Contribution from the European
Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 24).
82
According to GRECO, the system of applying supplementary remuneration appears still to be subject to
broad discretionary decisions and risks of undue influence. GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation
report, recommendation x, para. 26; See also Venice Commission (CDL-AD(2010)004), para. 46 and 51;
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 55:
“Systems making judges’ core remuneration dependent on performance should be avoided as they could
create difficulties for the independence of judges”.
83
The specialised judicial authorities include the Specialised Criminal Court and the Specialised Prosecutor’s
Office.
84
Decision under Protocol No. 42 of 23 November 2021 of the Judicial Chamber of SJC and decision of the
Plenary of the SJC under Protocol No. 23 of 25 November 2021; Decisions of the Prosecutorial Chamber of
SJC Protocol No. 40 of 23 November 2021. See the categorisation made pursuant to Art. 233, para. 6,
sentence 1 of the JSA, the SJC proposed categorisation of the abovementioned offices under extremely
11
A new draft law was adopted to close the specialised judicial authorities and provides
for a mechanism for the reappointment of magistrates. On 14 April 2022, the Parliament
adopted a law for the closure of the specialised judicial authorities because of several
concerns also mentioned in previous Rule of Law Reports85
and raised by various
stakeholders86
. Regarding the reappointment87
of the magistrates who worked in the
specialised judicial authorities, the respective chamber of the SJC88
would have the obligation
to open positions at district and appellate level based on the workload of each court,
prosecutor’s office, and investigative service89
. The decisions of the SJC on reappointment
would be subject to judicial review before the Supreme Administrative Court90
. This
reappointment procedure appears to present sufficient safeguards for the protection of judicial
independence. However, on 4 May 2022, the Prosecutor General challenged the
constitutionality of the reform before the Constitutional Court. The Court considered the
challenge admissible on 17 May 2022. The procedures for reappointment of these magistrates
are suspended pending the ruling of the Constitutional Court91
.
Quality
Improvements on legal aid, court fees and alternative dispute resolution are envisaged.
As noted in the previous two Rule of Law Reports, accessibility of courts remains a
concern92
. In the adopted RRP, the Government has committed to improve the system of
legal aid by extending it to additional types of cases and by including additional grounds for
requesting the aid. In addition, amendments would provide for exemptions from court fees
heavy (2.7 basic monthly remunerate for magistrates), high (2.3 basic monthly remuneration for
magistrates), medium (1.5 basic monthly remuneration for magistrates) and low workload.
85
See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.12, and 2021 Rule
of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.13-14. In its judgment of 11
January 2022 (Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, paras 356, 311, 312), the European Court of Human Rights
underlined the lack of proper judicial oversight over decisions to issue warrants for secret surveillance as
since 2018 the Specialised Criminal Court has been issuing roughly half of all surveillance warrants in
Bulgaria and as regards the judgments of the Specialised Criminal Court examined in that ruling, the
majority of the warrants issued had completely blanket contents and were general enough to be capable -of
relating to any possible surveillance application. On 14 September 2021, the report of the Temporary
Committee of the 46th National Assembly for investigating the facts and events around the protest of 2020
confirmed these concerns. In their written contribution, the European Association of Judges has expressed
concerns on the additional remunerations for the specialised magistrates and referred to the fact that the
public does not perceive the specialised criminal court as independent.
86
See Mission Report following the ad-hoc delegation to Slovakia and Bulgaria – 21-24 September 2021
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, p.14; Information received from Bulgarian Institute
for Legal Initiatives and Justice for Everyone Initiative in the context of the country visit to Bulgaria.
87
The reappointment will be done based on Art. 194, para 1 of the JSC – “In cases of closure of courts,
prosecutor's offices and investigative bodies or reduction of the number of positions held in them, the
relevant chamber of the SJC opens the respective positions in another equal body of the judiciary in the same
appellate district and reassigns the magistrates without competition.” - §41(1) and §42(1) and (4) of the Law
amending and supplementing the Judicial System Act.
88
The magistrates inform the respective chamber of the SJC about their preferred place for reappointment. In
cases of several magistrates applying for the same position, the respective chamber of the SJC would decide
on the reappointment based on pre-established criteria (§41 and §42 of the law).
89
§41(2) and §42(2) and (5) of the Law amending and supplementing the Judicial System Act.
90
Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit, p. 2.
91
Constitutional Court Case No. 9 of 4 May 2022.
92
See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.8; and 2021 Rule
of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.10. See also contribution from the
European Judges Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.23.
12
for beneficiaries of legal aid93
. Furthermore, a second commitment relates to the introduction
of a mandatory alternative dispute resolution for certain cases, such as divorce by petition,
disputes concerning parental rights and obligations. While this is a welcome reform, when
drafting the amendments account will have to be taken of the case law of the Court of Justice
of the EU, which outlines the conditions under which a mandatory alternative dispute
resolution is acceptable under EU law94
. The entry into force of these reforms is envisaged
for the last quarter of 2022.
Challenges remain for the Unified Information System for Courts. As of 1 June 2021, all
courts in Bulgaria should have started working with the Unified Information System for
Courts (UISC). However, as mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report95
, judges and court
staff continue to claim that the system does not improve their work, but actually creates more
obstacles. This was exemplified on 28 July 2021, when the plenary of the Supreme Court of
Cassation requested from its President to order the discontinuation of the use of the USIC96
because the system appeared to be complex, cumbersome, and time-consuming for both
judges and court staff97
. On 10 August 2021, the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation
ordered the system’s discontinuation on the grounds that it does not have the capacity to
provide citizens and legal entities with due access to fast and equal justice98
. On 28 January
2022, the Sofia City Administrative Court decided that the order of the President of the
Supreme Court of Cassation was null and void99
. However, the new President of the Supreme
Court of Cassation confirmed that the concerns regarding the USIC persist100
, and has
challenged the ruling of the Sofia City Administrative Court, which is currently pending
before the Supreme Administrative Court.
There is still room for improvement in the area of electronic communications. In
particular, it is not possible for all court staff and judges to work remotely in a secure
manner101
. Secure electronic communication is available, to some extent102
for
communication between courts, while not being available for other legal professionals103
.
Access to electronic tools remains limited104
. There are several projects under Bulgaria’s
RRP that aim to improve the digitalisation of justice. Namely, the foreseen reforms include
93
See RRP milestone on Accessible, effective and predictable justice.
94
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 2017, Menini & Rampanelli v Banco Popolare – Società
Cooperativa, C-75/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:457, paras. 58-71; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 March
2010, Alassini and Others, Case 317/08 to C-320/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:146, paras. 62-67.
95
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.11.
96
Statement of 27 July 2021, signed by 69 judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation, named “Why is the
USIC dangerous” and sent to the interim Minister of Justice and the Supreme Judicial Council.
97
Contribution from the European Association of Judges, p.30. Information also confirmed by the Bulgarian
Judges Association; President of the Supreme Court of Cassation during the country visit. In addition, the
system might risk to breach procedural rules.
98
Order No. 893 by the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 10 August 2021.
99
Decision No. 500 of 28 January 2021, Sofia City Administrative Court.
100
Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation in the context of the country visit “Information on
Topic 4”, p.2.
101
Figure 44 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
102
There is no full electronic connectivity, allowing for a case to be accepted by another court electronically. -
Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation in the context of the country visit, “Information
on Topic 4”, p.2.
103
Figure 45 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
104
Figures 46 and 47 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. Currently, it is only possible to consult electronic files and
to receive information online about court fees. However it is still not possible to initiate proceedings online,
to file an application for legal aid online and the official court documents cannot be served electronically.
13
annual analyses of the implementation of the legislative arrangements regarding digitalisation
of justice to allow, among others, for secure electronic communication105
. These
arrangements include, among others, the rules on service of notices and summons to an
electronic address, the possibility of payment of fees and other obligations to the court by
electronic means, and drafting of judicial acts as electronic documents. However, their
finalisation is foreseen by late 2023 and late 2024.
Efficiency
Administrative justice continues to perform efficiently. As last year, the disposition time
for administrative courts is among the most efficient in the EU at first instance courts106
.
However, stakeholders report delays, which tend to occurr when the Supreme Administrative
Court reviews decisions of the Supreme Judicial Council107
. As for litigious and non-litigious
civil and commercial cases, the persistent lack of disaggregated data does not allow for a
proper evaluation of the overall efficiency of the judicial system108
. As a result, specific
inefficiency problems could remain unnoticed109
.
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
The Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture (the Anti-
Corruption Commission) remains responsible for both preventive and sanctioning actions for
high-profile corruption, the implementation of rules on asset declarations and conflict of
interests, the confiscation of illegally acquired assets, as well as the monitoring of the
implementation of institutional integrity action plans. Created in the context of the post-2018
reform110
, the Anti-Corruption Commission has progressed in its reorganisation. Special
criminal offences (including high-level corruption) remain under the competence of the
specialised judicial authorities until July 2022. Afterwards, the competence will be
transferred to the regional and appellate judicial authorities around the country.
The perception of public sector corruption among experts and business executives is
that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2021 Corruption
105
The arrangements are laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.
106
Figures 9 and 10, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. It is to be noted that this result is based on the methodology
used by CEPEJ.
107
Information received from Bulgarian Judges Association; Specialised Criminal Court; Specialised
Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the country visit. For example, in 2019, according to Figure 9 of the
2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the average length for all administrative cases was 107 days, according to
statistics provided by the Supreme Administrative Court, the average length for SJC appeals was 442 days;
in 2020, according to Figure 9 of the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the average length for all administrative
cases was 124 days, according to statistics provided by the Supreme Administrative Court, the average
length for SJC appeals was 217 days. Moreover, some delays have occurred due to a preliminary ruling
request before the CJEU and a constitutional case, which suspended a number of ongoing administrative
cases.
108
Figures 7 and 8, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.
109
Contribution from the President of the Court of Cassation “Delays in commercial dispute proceedings are a
very serious problem. It entails not only adverse consequences, but also significant material damage to the
parties”. In particular, the adverse consequences caused by the delayed handling of cases cannot be remedied
by organisational measures alone as the main reason lies in the lack of resources in the Commercial
Chamber.
110
Following the comprehensive reform of 2017 and 2018, Bulgaria established the Commission for
Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture (hereinafter the Anti-corruption Commission). 2021
Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.12.
14
Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Bulgaria scores 42/100 and ranks 27th
in the
European Union and 78th
globally111
. This perception has been relatively stable over the past
five years112
. The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 88% of respondents
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 30% of respondents
feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)113
. As regards
businesses, 87% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and
61% consider that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)114
.
Furthermore, 15% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter
people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%)115
, while 10% of companies believe that
people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU
average 29%)116
.
The reorganisation of the Anti-Corruption Commission has progressed, and a new
reform of the Commission is envisaged. A reform of the Commission117
is foreseen under
Bulgaria’s RRP118
, and aims at modifying the investigative powers and further reorganising
the structure of the Commission by splitting it in two separate bodies119
. The objectives of
these changes are to streamline the operations of the Commission and achieve better results
on both anti-corruption120
and asset recovery actions. The impact of the reform on the
effectiveness of the investigative operations of the Commission remains to be assessed, as the
relevant draft-law remains to be approved, and it was made public оn 9 June 2022121
. In the
meantime, the reorganisation of the Commission is ongoing in line with the 2018 reform
plan. In 2021, eight territorial offices were closed, bringing the territorial structure to 20 units
in total122
. The Commission has also recruited 20% additional personnel (bringing the staff up
111
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived
corruption is categorised as follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between
59-50), high (scores below 50).
112
In 2017 the score was 43, while in 2021 the score was 42. The score significantly increases/decreases when
it changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years.
113
Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022). The Eurobarometer data on citizens’ corruption perception
and experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).
114
Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).
115
Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022).
116
Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022).
117
In March 2022, the president of the Anti-Corruption Commission resigned from his role - See press release
of the Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture from 14 February 2022.
118
Council Implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for
Bulgaria, SWD(2022) 106 final and COM(2022) 172 final.
119
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.13, in addition to information received in the
context of the country visit from the Ministry of Justice. While the specific roadmap for the full adoption of
such reforms remains unclear, the agreed deadline for its finalisation is the third quarter of 2022. Information
received in the context of the country visit from the Anti-Corruption Commission (for the period from the
beginning of 2022 to the date of the visit).
120
Two specific milestones on the reform of the Anti-Corruption Commission are envisaged under the
Bulgarian RRP, namely the milestones 218 (titled: Entry into force of the legislative amendments reforming
the Anticorruption and the Illegal Assets Forfeiture Commission) and 220 (titled: Anti-Corruption body set
up and operational).
121
Draft law for countering corruption of 9 June 2022.
122
Namely 5 directorates, 13 central offices and 2 remote bureaux. Information received in the context of the
country visit from the Anti-Corruption Commission.
15
to 500 officers in total)123
, acquired updated office equipment, signed cooperation agreements
with foreign peer agencies, and adopted internal rules and guidelines for external
stakeholders124
. Furthermore, the Commission received 255 reports on conflicts of interest;
initiated 90 procedures that resulted in 22 decisions regarding senior public officials.
Additionally, the anti-corruption directorate of the Anti-Corruption Commission125
received
877 alerts in 2021, performed 618 integrity checks (of which 97 on the demand of the
prosecution offices), responded to 45 requests for support in corruption crimes, and
forwarded 93 files to the Special Prosecutor’s office126
.
The National Strategy for Prevention and Countering Corruption continues to be
implemented. In 2021, a working group was tasked by the Government to prepare an annual
report on the implementation of the 2021-2027 anti-corruption strategy127
. To facilitate the
implementation of the anti-corruption strategy, the Government proposed measures in its
RRP128
. More precisely, the measures foreseen in the RRP aim at fighting corruption at all
levels of public administration and of the justice systems. They intend to ensure that the
members of the Civil Council of the National Council on Anti-Corruption Policies monitor
the implementation of the National Strategy for Prevention and Counteraction against
Corruption and its associated Roadmap129
.
Despite the work of the specialised judicial authorities, a solid track-record of final
convictions in high-level cases of corruption remains to be established. In 2021, the
Prosecutor’s office130
and Specialised Prosecutor’s office131
presented data on their activity
regarding corruption cases. The accuracy and reliability of these regular reports are envisaged
123
Information) received in the context of the country visit from the Anti-Corruption Commission (for the
period from the beginning of 2022 to the date of the visit.
124
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.14.
125
The Anti-Corruption Commission is organised into two main directorates: an anti-corruption directorate, and
an illegal assets forfeiture directorate. Information received in the context of the country visit from the Anti-
Corruption Commission.
126
Information received in the context of the country visit from the Anti-Corruption Commission.
127
Decree of the Council of Ministers n.235 of 19.03.2021. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p.15.
128
Information received in the context of the country visit from the Ministry of Justice. To this end, a specific
milestone in the RRP foresees that the National Council on Anti-Corruption Policies to annually adopt
reports (starting from 2022) analysing and evaluating the implementation of the National Strategy for
Preventing and Combatting Corruption (2021-2027), as well as an annual reporting on progress of
implementation of the European Rule of Law mechanism shall be ensured.
129
In addition to that, reforms intend to: set up an electronic platform for the exchange of information to
facilitate the verification of declarations of assets and interests and the identification of conflicts of interest;
improve the role of the Inspectorate of the Supreme Judicial Council in the prevention and counteracting
corruption through revised ethical guidelines and trainings; enhance the integrity of civil servants by
implementing an integrity verification mechanism for civil servants occupying positions that have a high
corruption risk; promote integrity in the State Owned Enterprises through the adoption of a Code of Ethics;
introduce corruption risk management systems and measures to enhance transparency.
130
It reported 215 individuals convicted for corruption (compared to 262 individuals convicted in 2020), seven
individuals imprisoned (compared to 16 for 2020), while imprisonment was suspended in 148 cases
(compared to 165 individuals for 2020).
131
It supervised 292 pre-trial cases (compared to 274 in 2020), including 58 newly opened files, closed 82 pre-
trial proceedings, indicted 61 individuals, and proposed a plea bargain for five persons. Moreover, 16
convictions, none of them final, were issued on corruption cases against officials (including a Minister, a
mayor, a deputy mayor and a judge), in addition to eight plea bargains.
16
to be improved through the reforms introduced in the RRP 132
. As mentioned above, in April
2022, the Parliament adopted a law for the closure of the specialised judicial authorities133
.
The law presents a mechanism for redistribution of the cases currently with the specialised
judicial authorities134
. Given the early stage of the reform, it is too early to assess the effects
in practice. In 2021, 33 cases related to corruption offences were initiated before the Supreme
Court of Cassation135
, with 19 decisions issued (including eight appeal decisions quashed,
and nine convictions with up-to seven-year imprisonment)136
. In March 2022, former top
executive officials (notably the former Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Chief of the
parliamentary budgetary Commission, as well as a media adviser) were detained under
suspicions of corruption as part of a police operation137
.
The introduction of a verification mechanism for enhancing the integrity of the civil
servants is envisaged in the RRP. An effective system for checking and improving the
integrity of civil servants occupying positions with high corruption risks is foreseen among
the RRP measures. Moreover, general provisions for the integrity of the public administration
continue to be implemented, including through practical projects138
. In 2021, 90 cases were
registered in 2021 for new corruption offences committed in the public administration (16%
less than 2020). The Ministry of Interior received 1 478 reports of misconduct within the
public administration139
. In 2021, the Ministry of Interior launched two projects on public
132
The reports are expected to include data on the number of the high-level corruption cases filed, the number
of cases concluded, detailed descriptions of the grounds for conclusion (both in the investigative stage and
trial stage), number of convictions and acquittals, as well as indicators defining the cases for high-level
corruption. Council Implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience
plan for Bulgaria, SWD(2022) 106 final.
133
See above under section I.
134
The preliminary inspections and pre-trial proceedings before the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office would be
sent to the future competent district Prosecutor’s Office (as per §43 of the Law amending and supplementing
the Judicial System Act), whereas cases for which there has not been a preliminary hearing yet would be
redistributed to the future competent district courts (as per §44 and §46 of the Law amending and
supplementing the Judicial System Act ), and all other ongoing cases would be sent to the Sofia City Court
and the Sofia Appellate Court, where the same panels of judges would be temporarily reappointed and will
conclude the proceedings (as per §45 and §47-§54 of the Law amending and supplementing the Judicial
System Act). This arrangement would allow to avoid restarting proceedings. The Sofia City Court would be
the court of first instance for cases within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
135
It is to be noted that the data of the Supreme Court of Cassation does not differentiate high-level corruption
cases from corruption cases. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report (Annex 1 - list of initiated
cases).
136
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report (Annex 2 - list of issued decisions).
137
Among others see press release from the Ministry of Interior from 17 March 2022. See also Press release
from Reuters of 17 March 2022.
138
One project is titled "Strengthening the capacity and improving the work of the authorities in charge of
control and sanctioning powers in the administration", carried out by the administration of the Council of
Ministers. The second project is titled “Reforming the integrity checks of employees in CACIAF”, whose
goal is to strengthen the integrity system in CACIAF by reforming the framework for checking the integrity
of employees. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.17.
139
These cases concern the activity of competent public services related to corruption crimes in general, and are
not limited to acts committed by officials of the Ministry of Interior. The cases involved 133 individuals,
compared to 145 individuals in 2020. Moreover, 364 employees received disciplinary sanctions, and 13 were
dismissed. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.26.
17
administration integrity. Training on public ethics and anti-corruption are delivered by the
Academy of the Ministry of Interior140
.
Measures aimed at improving the integrity of specific sectors of the public
administration, including the police and the judiciary, continue to be deployed. Several
authorities have continued to implement sector-based measures to improve the integrity of the
public administration. As regards police measures, the rotation of public officers at risk of
corruption (such as border or traffic control staff, and staff involved in residence and/or
citizenship procedures) has been in place since 2015 in order to deter corruption141
and is
being implemented on a permanent basis. The establishment of the facility to host the Centre
for Active Monitoring in the System of the Ministry of Interior was completed at the end of
2021 to deter instances of corruption142
. In order to reduce the potential for corruption within
the Ministry of Interior, the number of electronic administrative services was increased143
.
During 2021, there were 126 reports of misconduct of border police received, which resulted
in opening pre-trial proceedings against nine officers, plus five disciplinary proceedings (for
serious disciplinary breaches) , and disciplinary sanctions were issued in 12 cases (including
the dismissal of six officers)144
. During 2021, the National Revenue Agency (NRA)
performed an assessment on conflicts of interests of its personnel; an online training on ethics
was delivered to staff of both NRA and the National Customs Agency145
. As to the judiciary,
the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council publishes anonymised cases of violations of
the Judiciary System Act. It has also established guidelines for the reporting of cases of
misconduct146
. To prevent and counteract conflicts of interest in the judiciary, the
Inspectorate is in the process of developing a programme consisting of an electronic public
register of electronic declarations of circumstances related to the prevention and
establishment of conflicts of interest and property declarations. Moreover, in the context of
the implementation of the Bulgarian RRP, it will, among other things, revise the ethical
guidelines for the conduct of magistrates and deliver anti-corruption trainings.
The system of declaration of assets and conflict of interests for public officials continues
to be regularly implemented. For 2021, there were 12 430 declarations of assets received by
the Anti-corruption Commission (compared to 6 303 for 2020)147
, and a total of 5 279
verifications of asset declarations, with 679 decisions (compared to 483 for 2020)
140
For example, in 2021, 33 training sessions covering anti-corruption were delivered to 871 police officers.
Information received in the context of the country visit from the Directorate for Internal Security of the
Ministry of Interior.
141
The use of body cameras for patrol officers is also foreseen to deter corruption. 2021 Rule of Law Report,
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.14, in addition to Input from Bulgaria for the
2022 Rule of Law Report, p.16.
142
The Centre allows for monitoring the actions of the employees of the Ministry of Interior, including border
police officers, in real time. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.24.
143
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.16.
144
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.24.
145
All employees of the National Revenue Agency have undergone mandatory electronic self-training in order
to get acquainted with the updated Code of Ethics of the National Revenue Agency. All new employees in
the specialized administration in the National Customs Agency in 2021 have been trained in prevention and
counteraction to corruption, conflict of interest and the Code of Conduct for employees in the state
administration and the Code of Conduct for Customs officials. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, pp.19-20.
146
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.17.
147
The Public Register Directorate processed information on a total of 883 Senior Public Office Holders who
did not submit or submitted the relevant declaration outside the statutory deadline during the year. Activity
Report for the Commission for Anti-Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture of 2021.
18
establishing an administrative violation in cases of both failure to submit and wrongly
submitted asset declarations148
. A tender for designing an online platform to file and verify
declarations of asset and conflict of interests was launched in December 2021149
. In
December 2021, the Anti-corruption Commission adopted guidelines concerning the
procedure to file declarations of property and interests150
. Since July 2021, officers of the
National Customs Agency151
are required to sign declaration of assets, including bank
accounts152
.
Lobbying lacks a dedicated regulation. As noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law
Reports, there are no specific obligations for the registration of lobbyists or reporting of
contacts between public officials and lobbyists153
. Milestones have been included in the
framework of the RRP to regulate lobbying activities. As a result, legislative measures need
to be adopted by the end of 2023 to specifically regulate lobbying activities in the context of
public decision-making154
.
Provisions are in place for the audits on political party financing. The National Audit
Office (NAO) is responsible for carrying out audits on the consistency of financial activities,
revenue, expenditure and management of assets made available to political parties155
. On 8
January 2022, the NAO adopted a report covering the period from January to December 2020
and auditing the financial activities and real estate given to political parties156
. Moreover,
political parties submit an annual report to the National Audit Office, which is responsible for
maintaining the Unified Public Register during elections. The Register renders public
information about the participants in the elections, such as donors; type, purpose and amount
of donations made; the funds provided by the candidates and the members of the initiative
committees; the declarations of origin of the donated and provided funds; the reports of the
parties, initiative committees and coalitions on revenues, expenditures and payment
commitments in connection with the election campaign157
. According to the law158
, the
Committee for Combating Corruption, Conflict of Interest and Parliamentary Ethics shall
provide explanations to the Members of the Parliament on the application of the ethical
norms, and may establish a breach of ethics rules, issue decision and impose measures159
.
A working group tasked to prepare a draft regulation on the protection of
whistleblowers has been established. The Anti-Corruption Commission is responsible for
148
Activity Report for the Commission for Anti-Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture of 2021.
149
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.20.
150
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.22.
151
Decree No. 227 of 13.07.2021 of the Council of Ministers, See also Input from Bulgaria for the 2021 Rule of
Law Report, p.25.
152
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.25.
153
See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.14, 2021 Rule of
Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.15.
154
Notably, a concept note shall be prepared on the regulation of lobbying, and legislative measures shall be
adopted to regulate lobbying activities in the context of public decision-making.
155
Art. 172 of the Election Code.
156
National Audit Office, Audit Report No. 0600100321 of 8 January 2022.
157
Art. 171 of the Election Code.
158
Rules of Organisation and Procedure of the National Assembly, Issued by the National Assembly Prom. SG
No. 35/2 MAY 2017; amend. SG No. 34/20 APR 2018.
159
Such as reprimand, censure or temporary removal. Rules of Organisation and Procedure of the National
Assembly, Issued by the National Assembly Prom. SG No. 35/2 MAY 2017; amend. SG No. 34/20 APR
2018.
19
receiving whistleblowing complaints in cases of corruption or conflict of interest. In
September 2021, the Ministry of Justice established a working group tasked to prepare draft
regulation on the protection of whistleblowers160
. The consultation process on the draft
amendments for a regulation on the protection of whistleblowers ended on 23 May 2022161
.
At the time of publication of this report, the proposals for changes in the draft amendments
received during the public consultation were being processed. . Nevertheless, as part of
Bulgaria’s engagements resulting from the adoption of the RRP, the introduction of
legislative measures is planned for September 2022 to align with the requirements of the EU
directive for the protection of whistleblowers162
.
Bulgaria abolished its investor citizenship scheme. The European Commission has
frequently raised its serious concerns about investor citizenship schemes and certain risks,
including corruption, that are inherent in such schemes.163
Оn 24 March 2022, the Parliament
repealed the provisions allowing for the naturalisation of investors based on an investor
citizenship scheme164
.
Specific corruption-risks such as management of budget funds and conducting control
activities, including procurement were identified, in the COVID-19 pandemic. On 31
January 2022, the Ministry of Health performed a corruption-related risk assessment165
during the COVID-19 pandemic, which underlined specific corruption risks in the area of
management of budget funds and in the conducting of control activities, including
procurement. The analysis prompted the adoption of an annual health sector anti-corruption
plan, including mitigating measures166
. In January 2021, the Anti-corruption Commission
160
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.21.
161
See Draft Law on the Protection of Persons Reporting or Disclosure of Violations on the website of the
Council of Ministers for public consultations from 23 May 2022.
162
Directive (EU) 2019/1937.
163
As mentioned in the EU Commission's report of January 2019, those risks relate in particular to security,
money laundering, tax evasion and corruption and the Commission has been monitoring wider issues of
compliance with EU law raised by investor citizenship schemes.
164
Pending applications under the repealed Art. 12a and 14a are terminated. See para. 7 of the adopted law. See
also State Gazette No 26 of 1 April 2022. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Commission also
called on Member States operating an investor citizenship scheme to repeal it immediately and to assess the
possibility to revoke such naturalisations previously granted to certain Russian and Belarusian individuals
(see Commission recommendation on immediate steps in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in
relation to investor citizenship schemes and investor residence schemes (C(2022) 2028 final). Bulgaria did
not provide information on any specific assessments carried out following the Commission
Recommendation.
165
Anti-corruption Plan of the Ministry of Heath for 2022.
166
Such as the following: Involvement of a larger number of experts in the preparation of technical assignments
and technical specifications for public procurement and application of the rotation principle for the
employees included in the commissions under the Public Procurement Act; Separation of procurement from
control in public procurement; Prevention - analysis of the current rules, instructions and methodologies of
administrative structures and secondary budget managers at the Minister of Health, in order to identify
opportunities for establishing corrupt practices and on this basis to amend them to cross these opportunities;
Introduction of the principle of re-inspections of sites by another team; Rotation of employees from the units
with control functions; Establishment of an electronic system for data entry and circumstances within the
statutory deadlines in the Executive Agency Medical Supervision; Development of unified for all regional
health inspections, procedures and samples of documents for the provision of administrative services;
Development of specific internal rules and procedures for declaring and establishing conflicts of interest of
employees evaluating applications for authorization of trade in medicinal products and evaluating clinical
trials in the Bulgarian Drug Agency; Conducting trainings on prevention and counteraction to corruption and
conflict of interests in the structural units of the Ministry of Health and the secondary budget managers at the
Ministry of Health. Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.22.
20
published a report on the sector-specific risk of corruption167
. In 2021, the Public
Procurement Agency issued guidelines168
, including standardised model contracts, aimed at
clarifying public procurement procedures169
. A report on the results of the public
procurement monitoring the period 2018-2020, including corruption-risk, was adopted in
2021170
.
III. MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM
The Bulgarian legal framework is based on a set of constitutional safeguards and legislative
measures, such as the Radio and Television Act171
. The Access to Public Information Act
regulates access to public information and the re-use of public sector information. The
Compulsory Deposit of Copies of Printed and Other Works Act contains requirements
regarding media ownership transparency (“Law on Deposit of Copies”)172
. The institutional
framework consists of the media regulator, the Council for Electronic Media (CEM), and the
National Council for Journalistic Ethics and its executive body – the Ethics Commission173
.
While the legal framework concerning the media regulator remains unchanged,
concerns have been flagged about the lack of sufficient safeguards to secure its complete
independence in practice. While certain legal safeguards are in place, the CEM has raised
concerns about the availability of adequate and stable financial resources for its activities
(resources have nonetheless increased in 2021) which might have an effect on its work
independently from state pressure174
. Moreover, several stakeholders have shared doubts
about the lack of complete political independence in the activities carried out by the regulator
and some commentators point to the fact that the very constitution of CEM inevitably
exposes it to risks of political influence175
.
The media self-regulatory body is the National Council for Journalistic Ethics (NCJE),
whose decisions are not always implemented in practice by the relevant media176
. The
decisions of the Ethics Commission (the executive body of the NCJE) are only binding on the
167
The report is titled Analysis of anti-corruption plans for 2021 of primary and secondary budget authorising
officer. The analysis revealed that the corruption risks are divided into areas as follows: 96 risks in
management, disposal or spending of budget funds and assets, including procurement; 148 risks in control
activities; 61 risks in provision of administrative services, concessions, issuance of licenses and permits,
registration regimes; 17 risks in competitive procedures/competitions for entering persons in registers or for
performing regulated professions; 44 risks in gaps in laws and unclear legislation, presupposing
contradictory interpretation and/or application of regulations; 73 risks in other measures in view of the
specific risks in the respective departments; and 117 risks in publicity measures. Input from Bulgaria for the
2022 Rule of Law Report, p.22.
168
On the website of the Bulgarian Public Procurement Agency from 14 June to 16 July 2021 a set of seven
guidelines was published.
169
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.19.
170
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.19.
171
Radio and Television Act.
172
The enforcement of the Law on Deposit of Copies is carried out by the Ministry of Culture.
173
Bulgaria ranks 91st in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 112th in
the previous year.
174
Information received from CEM during the country visit and confirmed by written input. See also 2021 Rule
of Law Report, p.16.
175
Contributions from Reporters sans frontières and International Press Institute for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report. See also 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p.11.
176
The media self-regulatory body acts on the basis of the Code of Ethics adopted in 2004 and signed by a
number of media outlets. For the exact list of signatories, see ‘List of media which have signed the Ethics
Code’.
21
signatories of the Bulgarian Media Code of Ethics and voluntary for other media players.
Some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the decisions against media acting in breach
of journalistic ethics have not always been implemented in practice and that no sanctions
were imposed177
.
Some issues remain as regards the effective transparency of media ownership and
related enforcement of these obligations. In addition to the CEM public register covering
media ownership structures of radio and television operators178
, the Ministry of Culture hosts
a public register based on declarations made by any media outlet of its beneficial ownership,
as well as the funding received from public funds, political parties, etc. Although the legal
framework is in place, some media do not declare their ownership structure (in particular
online media)179
while others declare owners who are not the ones that effectively control the
media outlet180
. A revision of the 2018 Law on the Deposit of Copies is being considered by
the current government to improve the effective availability of media ownership
information181
.
While the lack of a clear regulatory framework regarding transparency in the allocation
of state advertising remains unchanged, some measures have been taken to improve
transparency in practice. Notably, this takes the form of a list of contracts awarded for the
purpose of state advertising, including recipient and amount received, which can be consulted
on a publicly-available website182
. Stakeholders underlined however remaining issues in
particular when it comes to a lack of transparency when media outlets receive state
advertising through intermediaries (media agencies)183
. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor
also considered that state regulation of resources and support to the media sector, including
state advertising resources, scored at high risk (97%) and that the lack of regulatory standards
regarding the distribution of state advertising remains problematic184
.
Media in Bulgaria are subject to a set of rules regarding their operation on the market,
but there are no specific media pluralism laws restricting media ownership and
therefore potential media concentration. Media can rely on the principle of editorial
independence from economic and political actors which is set out in the Radio and Television
Law and features in the Code of ethics of Bulgarian media185
. Apart from general competition
rules which are underpinned by economic considerations, no specific rules exist when it
comes to activities that may have an impact on media concentration186
. As to the entry and
operation of media service providers, the law provides for different regimes when it comes to
177
Written contribution from Reporters sans frontières for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Information also
received from Association of European Journalists in Bulgaria in the context of the country visit.
178
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.16.
179
According to the Bulgarian authorities, identifying the actual owners of online publications is often
infeasible in practice.
180
Information received from the Ministry of Culture and media stakeholders in the context of the country visit.
See also written contributions from Reporters sans frontières and International Press Institute for the 2022
Rule of Law Report.
181
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
182
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
183
Information received from Association of European Journalists in Bulgaria in the context of the country
visit, see also written contribution from Reporters sans frontières for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
184
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p.15.
185
Art. 5 of the Radio and Television Law; Section 3 of the Code of Ethics.
186
Information received from the Ministry of Culture in the context of the country visit.
22
linear services (licensing/registration requirement) and non-linear services (notification
requirement)187
.
Certain legal safeguards exist regarding the independence of public service media but
they appear to be insufficient. The media regulator CEM appoints the Director Generals of
the Bulgarian national radio (BNR) and television (BNT) following a public competition and
after hearings of the relevant candidates. Director Generals submit reports on their activities
to CEM at regular intervals (currently every six months).188
The management boards of the
BNR and the BNT consist of five members each, and are endorsed by the media regulator
upon proposal by the Directors General189
. The appointment procedure for management and
board functions, taken together with the funding of public service media, does not seem to
guarantee independence from the government or other political influence190
. A revision of the
law is in preparation in order to strengthen the independence of public service media and
define in more detail the public service remit and the related financing191
.
The professional environment for journalists appears to have improved slightly since
the last report. Stakeholders consider that the press has been able to express itself more
freely in comparison to past years192
. Nevertheless, issues remain, in particular when it comes
to access to public information193
, working conditions and pressure on journalists at local
level as well as the increase of strategic lawsuits against public participation, so-called
SLAPPs cases194
. Three new alerts regarding attacks and harassment of journalists were
registered in 2022 on the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism
and safety of journalists. This includes physical threats against an investigative journalist and
defamation lawsuits, including heavy fines in one defamation case. Finally, no measures
supporting directly the media sector and its journalists have been put in place in the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic195
.
IV. OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES
Bulgaria is a representative democratic republic with a directly elected President, a
unicameral National Assembly and a Constitutional Court in charge of constitutional review
of laws and interpretative decisions. The National Assembly has a final decision-making
power when adopting laws196
. Bulgaria has two national human rights institutions. First, the
187
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
188
Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
189
Art. 58(1) Radio and Television Act.
190
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p.15. In particular, the MPM 2022 implies that the selection procedure for
PSM management does not safeguard against politically engaged nominees.
191
Information received in the context of the country visit (e.g. Ministry of Culture and media stakeholders).
192
Information received from Association of European Journalists and National Council for Journalistic Ethics
in the context of the country visit.
193
The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor notes that while institutional websites provide better access to
information functions in 2021 compared to previous years, explicit or tacit refusals of governmental bodies
to provide public information or provide information that cannot be read in practice continue to take place.
194
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor. See also written contribution from Reporters sans frontières for the 2022
Rule of Law Report.
195
The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates that some media outlets have resorted to financial instruments
which were not media-specific and meant to limit the impact of the pandemic on the economy.
196
Art. 87 of the Constitution: any member of the National Assembly or the Council of Ministers has the right
to introduce a draft law. It is adopted by the National Assembly in two readings. The adopted draft law is
sent to the President of the Republic of Bulgaria, who signs a decree for its promulgation. After more than
one year of various court proceedings, at the end of 2021 a panel of three judges from the Supreme
23
Ombudsperson is an independent constitutional body, elected by the National Assembly and
tasked with the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms which
has an A-status accreditation from GANHRI197
. Second, the Commission for the Protection
against Discrimination is a body that implements policies in the spheres of gender equality
and non-discrimination which has a B-status accreditation from GANHRI.
The establishment of a Post-monitoring Mechanism is progressing. As indicated in
previous reports198
, the Government committed to set up a Coordination and Cooperation
Council (‘post-monitoring council’) with the aim of assessing Bulgaria’s progress in judicial
reform, fight against corruption and organised crime in an independent, transparent, and
objective manner. This body, which would become operational once the CVM is formally
lifted, includes a Civic Council which provides for the representation of civil society in the
mechanism. A positive development follows from the recent ruling of the Supreme
Administrative Court199
as regards the procedure to select members of the Civil Council in
the framework of the post-monitoring mechanism. The Court’s decision concerned the
successful appeal made by an NGO to take part in the Civil Council previously rejected by
the former Minister of Justice200
. It is positive that the role of civil society is acknowledged as
an important and vital element of any national policy development and implementation. On
23 June 2022, the Government published for public consultation draft amendments to the
decision for the establishment of the Post-monitoring Mechanism201
. The new amendments
aim at extending the competences of the Mechanism to cover the topics included in the
Commission’s annual Rule of Law Reports. Moreover, the draft envisages that the
Mechanism would start functioning immediately after its adoption by the Council of
Ministers independently from the CVM.
New procedural rules have been adopted to improve the law-making process. In 2021,
Bulgaria held three parliamentary elections202
. All three of the Parliaments made amendments
to their Rules of Procedure, which led to an improvement of the rules for the law-making
process. As a result, all draft legislation proposed by Members of Parliament should now be
Administrative Court ruled in favour of Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives (the decision is available
here in BG only e State Gazette and enters into force three days after its publication, unless the act provides
otherwise. See also the recent draft reform of the Constitution mentioned in footnote 40, which extended the
right of legislative initiative also to the Councils for the judiciary. However, this was later left out of the
draft.
197
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.
198
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.17.
199
The decision of 12 December 2021 (Decision No. 12800 on Administrative case No. 7245/2020) which held
the Minister of Justice responsible of violating Art. 146, points 3 and 4 of Administrative procedure code
(substantial violation of administrative procedure rules and of contradiction with substantive legal
provision). See also the Contribution from the Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives for the 2022 Rule of
Law Report. After more than one year of various court proceedings, at the end of 2021 the Supreme
Administrative Court ruled in favour of the Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives. The foundation has sued
the Minister of Justice for rejecting without a reason its selection to be part of the Civic Council established
by Decree 240 of the Council of Ministers for the creation of an internal monitoring mechanism related to
the fight against corruption and the judicial reform. That internal mechanism is supposed to replace the
CVM at national level.
200
Contribution from the Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
201
See draft amendments of Decree No. 240 of the Council of Ministers of 2019 on the website of the Council
of Ministers for public consultations from 23 June 2022.
202
Regular Parliamentary elections were held on 4 April 2021. However, due to political fragmentation in
Parliament and the resulting impossibility to form a ruling coalition, two snap parliamentary elections were
held on 11 July 2021 and on 14 November 2021.
24
accompanied by a reasoning and an impact assessment203
. Moreover, a summary of
stakeholders’ opinions204
is to be presented with the draft laws. In addition, the possibility of
introducing important legislative changes through amendments to other legal acts between
the first and the second reading is now limited to amendments related to the matter of the
initially submitted act and subject to the approval by a two-thirds majority of the committee
responsible205
. Currently, there is no data yet to confirm whether the practices followed by
the previous Parliaments continue to be used or whether the new rules are fully respected.
The quality of law-making is an important factor for investor confidence and a reason for
concern about effectiveness of investment protection for 24% of companies in Bulgaria206
.
Stakeholder feedback suggests that quick adoption of laws before prior assessment results in
costs and legal uncertainty for business207
.
The emergency situation regime related to the COVID-19 pandemic ended. As described
in the 2021 Rule of Law Report208
, the emergency regime (‘emergency epidemic
situation’)209
adopted on 12 May 2020, and declared on 13 May 2020 was last renewed until
31 March 2022210
. Further easing of measures was introduced through an order of the
Minister of Health on 17 March 2022, including the abolishment of the requirement for a
‘green certificate’ for all activities and events in the country211
.
On 1 January 2022, Bulgaria had 92 leading judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights pending implementation212. At that time, Bulgaria’s rate of leading
judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 55% and the average time
that the judgments had been pending implementation was 6 years and 4 months213
. One of the
oldest leading judgments pending implementation for 22 years concerns the excessive use of
force by law enforcement agents214
. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments
pending implementation has increased to 97215
.
203
Art. 70 of the Rules of Procedure.
204
Art. 70, para. 2, pp. 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
205
Art. 78, para. 3 of the Rules of Procedure.
206
Figure 54, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard indicates that “Frequent changes in legislation or concerns about
quality of the law-making process” are of concern to 24.5% of companies in Bulgaria.
207
Figure 55, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
208
To be noted that the legislative process was the regular one except for the emergency measures themselves.
See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, p.19.
209
Art. 63 Health Act. According to this new regime, the Council of Ministers could declare an emergency
epidemic situation for a certain period of time at the suggestion of the Minister of Health. This would allow
some of the measures taken under the state of emergency to continue to apply and new ones to be
introduced, despite the end of the state of emergency.
210
Decision of the Council of Ministers of 24 November 2021.
211
Order No. RD-01-138/17.03.2022.
212
The adoption of necessary execution measures for a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken.
213
All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2022. See the Contribution from the
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 30.
214
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 May 2000, Velikova v. Bulgaria, 41488/98, pending
implementation since 2000.
215
Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC)
25
A Council for Civil Society Development has been appointed. On 16 February 2022, the
Government appointed the members of the Council for Civil Society Development. The
Council was established through legislative amendments, which entered into force on 1
January 2018216
, while the rules governing the operation of the Council were adopted in
2019217
. The election of the Council’s first members took place on 14 May 2020218
. However,
in May 2021, these first members published an open letter to the then interim Prime Minister
claiming that they had not been able to perform any activity over the previous year and urged
him to take the necessary measures that would allow the consultative body to begin
operating219
. The main purpose of the Council is to participate in the drafting and
implementation of policies in support of civil society development. In addition, the Council is
also responsible for the advancement of the national civil society strategy, for making
available the information on funding for civil society organisations, and for the definition of
priority areas for development220
. At present however, the civil space is still considered
narrowed221
.
216
Art. 4 of the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act.
217
Council of Ministers (2019), Rules on the organisation and activity of the Council for Civil Society
Development, 10 September 2019.
218
Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights - Bulgaria, p. 3.
219
Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights - Bulgaria, p. 4.
220
Art. 4 of the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act. See also Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment
and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights - Bulgaria, p. 4.
221
See rating given by CIVICUS, Bulgaria. Ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed,
obstructed, repressed and closed. See also contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of
Law Report, p. 9, public participation and civil society capacities remain low due to lack of public policies
(or lack of implementation thereof) aimed at developing the sector, and lack of appropriate funding for
advocacy work, in the context of weak rule of law infrastructures.
26
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*
* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report
can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en.
Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022
Rule of Law Report.
Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Federal Economic
Chamber for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Bulgarian Council of Ministers (2019), Council of Ministers, Rules on the organisation and activity of
the Council for Civil Society Development, 10 September 2019.
Bulgarian Council of Ministers (2021), Decision of the Council of Ministers of 24 November 2021.
Bulgarian Council of Ministers (2021), Decree of the Council of Ministers n.235 of 19.03.2021
https://strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1353.
Bulgarian Government (2022), Input from Bulgaria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation (2022), Contribution from the Bulgarian Institute
for Legal Initiatives Foundation for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation (2022), Written contribution from the Bulgarian
Institute for Legal Initiatives Foundation in the context of the country visit.
Bulgarian National Assembly (2021), Report of the Temporary Committee of the 46th National
Assembly for investigating the facts and events around the protest of 2020.
Bulgarian National Assembly (2021), Rules of Organisation and Procedure of the National Assembly.
Bulgarian Ministry of Health (2022), Anti-corruption Plan of the Ministry of Heath for 2022.
Bulgarian Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context
of the country visit.
Bulgarian Public Procurement Agency (2021), Methodological guidelines
https://www2.aop.bg/metodologiya/metodicheski-ukazaniya/.
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022 – Report on
Bulgaria.
CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States.
Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Bulgaria https://monitor.civicus.org/country/bulgaria/.
Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture (2022), Activity Report for the
Commission for Anti-Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture of 2021.
Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal Assets Forfeiture (2022), Press release of 14
February 2022.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 1 of 2022 on Case No. 17 of 8 February 2021.
Constitutional Court Case No. 9 of 4 May 2022
Constitutional Court Case No. 7 of 29 April 2022.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2019), Decision CM/Notes/1362/H46-6.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2019), Interim Resolution, CM/ResDH(2019)367.
27
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2020), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-9 of 1-
3 September 2020.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2020), Notes CM/Notes/1377bis/H46-9 of 3 September
2020.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-8 of 2
December 2021.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Notes CM/Notes/1419/H46-8 of 30 November- 2
December 2021.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-6 of 11
March 2021.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Notes CM/Notes/1398/H46-6 of 9-11 March
2021.
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System
Part I: The Independence of Judges (CDL-AD(2010)004).
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2017), Bulgaria - Opinion on the judicial system act (CDL-
AD(2017)018).
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Bulgaria - Opinion on draft amendments to the
Criminal Procedure Code and the Judicial System Act, concerning criminal investigations against top
magistrates (CDL-AD(2019)031).
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Bulgaria - Urgent interim opinion on the draft new
constitution opinion (CDL-AD(2020)035).
Council of Ministers (2022), Draft Law on the Protection of Persons Reporting or Disclosure of
Violations, https://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=6784
Council of Ministers (2022), draft amendments of Decree No. 240 of the Council of Ministers of
2019, https://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=6920
Council of the European Union (2006), Council conclusions of 17 October 2006, PRESS RELEASE,
2755th Council Meeting, General Affairs and External Relations General Affairs 13339/06 (Presse
264), https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13339-2006-INIT/en/pdf.
Council of the European Union (2017), Council Conclusions on the Cooperation and Verification
Mechanism, 12 December 2017, 15587/17 COVEME 9,
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15587-2017-INIT/en/pdf.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 16 November 2021, Prokuratura Rejonowa w
Minsku Mazowieckim, Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19, EU:C:2021:931.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 17 June 2017, Menini & Rampanelli v Banco
Popolare – Società Cooperativa, C-75/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:457.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, Case
317/08 to C-320/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:146.
Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses' attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption.
European Civic Forum (2022), Contribution from the European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of
Law Report.
28
European Commission (2006), Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism
for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas
of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (C(2006) 6569), OJ L 354, 14.12.2006,
European Commission (2019), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on Progress in Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism,
COM(2019)498.
European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Bulgaria.
European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Bulgaria.
European Commission (2022), ANNEX to the Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision on the
approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Bulgaria, of 7 April 2022,
COM(2022) 172 final.
European Commission (2022), Council Implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of
the recovery and resilience plan for Bulgaria, of 7 April 2022, COM(2022) 172 final.
European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard.
European Commission (2022), Recommendation on immediate steps in the context of the Russian
invasion of Ukraine in relation to investor citizenship schemes and investor residence schemes
(C(2022) 2028 final).
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 18 May 2000, Velikova v. Bulgaria, 41488/98.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 5 November 2009, Kolevi v. Bulgaria, 1108/02.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 3 March 2015, S.Z. v. Bulgaria, 29263/12.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 11 January 2022, Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, 70078/12.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 19 October 2021, Todorova v. Bulgaria, 40072/13.
European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2019), Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report
breaches of Union law.
European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Mission Report
following the ad-hoc delegation to Slovakia and Bulgaria – 21-24 September 2021, adopted 17
November 2021
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/LIBE/DV/2021/11-
29/MissionreportSK_BG_1240476_EN.pdf.
Franet, Center for the Study of Democracy (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space
of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Bulgaria, Vienna, EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
related.
GRECO (2015), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation report on Bulgaria on corruption prevention
in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000
016806c983f.
Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council (2022), Written contribution from the Inspectorate to the
Supreme Judicial Council in the context of the country visit.
29
International Press Institute (2022), Contributions from International Press Institute for the 2022 Rule
of Law Report
Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Judicial Council (2021), Decision under Protocol No. 42 of 23
November 2021
Ministry of Health (2022), Order No. RD-01-138/17.03.2022
National Audit Office (2022), Audit Report No. 0600100321 of 8 January 2022.
Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council (2021), Decision under Protocol No.13 of 25 November
2021
Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council (2021), Protocol No.12 of 2021
Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council (2021), Protocol No.14 of 2021
Plenary of the Supreme Judicial Council (2022), Agenda No.8 of 2022
Prosecutorial Chamber of the Supreme Judicial Council (2021), Decisions under Protocol No.40 of 23
November 2021.
Reporters Sans Frontières (2022), Contribution from the Reporters Sans Frontières for the 2022 Rule
of Law Report.
Reporters without Borders (2022) – Bulgaria https://rsf.org/en/bulgaria.
Reuters (2022), Press release https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bulgarias-former-pm-detained-
interior-ministry-says-2022-03-17/.
Sofia City Administrative Court (2021), Decision No. 500 of 28 January 2021
Statement of the Bulgarian Judges Association of 23 June 2021 https://judgesbg.org/144-2/.
Statement of 27 July 2021, signed by 69 judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation, named “Why is
the USIC dangerous” http://vks.bg/novini/stanovishte-vks-eiss-27-07.html.
Supreme Administrative Court (2020), Decision No. 12800 on Administrative case No. 7245/2020
Supreme Cassation Court (2021), Order No. 893 by the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation
of 10 August 2021
Supreme Cassation Court (2022), Written contribution from the Supreme Court of Cassation in the
context of the country visit.
Supreme Judicial Council (2022), website of the Supreme Judicial Council for the register of
seconded judges, http://www.vss.justice.bg/root/f/upload/34/REG_KOM_11_04_2022_S.pdf.
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.
UN OHCHR Regional Office for Europe (2022), Contribution from the UN OHCHR Regional Office
for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
30
Annex II: Country visit to Bulgaria
The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with:
 Anti-Corruption Council
 Anti-corruption Fund Foundation
 Association of Bulgarian Radio and TV Operators
 Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria
 Association of Prosecutors in Bulgaria
 Audio-Visual regulator – Council for Electronic Media
 Bulgarian center for not-for-profit law
 Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
 Bulgarian Institute for Legal Initiatives
 Bulgarian Judges Association
 Centre for the Study of Democracy
 Commission for countering corruption and for forfeiture of illegally acquired assets
 For the truth project
 Group of academics
 Initiative Justice for Everyone
 Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council
 Ministry of Culture
 Ministry of Interior
 Ministry of Justice
 National Council for Journalistic Ethics
 Office of the Prosecutor General
 Open Society Institute
 Public service media – Bulgarian National Radio
 Specialised Criminal Court
 Specialised Prosecutor's Office
 Supreme Administrative Court
 Supreme Bar Council
 Supreme Court of Cassation
 Supreme Judicial Council
 Union of Publishers in Bulgaria
* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:
 Amnesty International
 Article 19
 Civil Liberties Union for Europe
 Civil Society Europe
 European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
 European Civic Forum
 European Federation of Journalists
 European Partnership for Democracy
 European Youth Forum
 Free Press Unlimited
 Human Rights Watch
 ILGA Europe
 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
31
 International Press Institute
 Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI)
 Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
 Philea
 Reporters Without Borders
 Transparency International Europe