In brief
Yes, Bulgaria will file an appeal against the CEC decision that found no violation by PM Rumen Radev in his post‑first‑round remarks. The appeal centers on the commission’s refusal to address more than 105 complaints about the use of official government media in what the party argues is an unfair advantage for Iotova.
Yes, Bulgaria, one of the parties in the Democratic Bulgaria parliamentary grouping, announced on Tuesday that it will appeal the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) ruling that Prime Minister Rumen Radev did not violate the Election Code when he addressed the nation following the first round of the presidential election.
The CEC, after reviewing the complaint filed by a coalition of NGOs and election observer groups, voted 8‑to‑7 to reject the claim that Radev’s statements, disseminated through the Government Information Service and the official website of the Council of Ministers, were election‑eering material.
On Monday, 26 October, Radev told reporters at the opening of the Sofia Economic Forum that the first round had turned the nation “into a life‑and‑death battle” and urged voters to “concentrate on Iotova so that Bulgaria will be in safe hands.” His speech was subsequently reposted by the Council’s press service, a move that the Gurov‑Kandev nomination committee and several civil‑society groups considered de‑facto campaign propaganda for presidential candidate Iliana Iotova.
Vyara Todeva, a CEC member, clarified during a briefing that the violation was not in Radev’s speech itself.
It was not the Prime Minister's statement itself that constituted a violation of the Election Code, but rather the dissemination of that statement through the Council of Ministers' communication channels, including the government information service.
The complaints reference more than 105 reports that the CEC failed to scrutinize, with the parties arguing that the use of state‑funded channels provides an unfair electoral advantage. The CEC avoided a detailed assessment of the complaints, a decision highlighted by its statement that the remarks were made outside a public agency subject to the electoral code and prior to the commencement of the official campaign period.
In a statement released by Yes, Bulgaria, the party called the commission’s inaction a shield for the elite. “The CEC must not become an institutional shield that protects those in power from scrutiny,” the party warned, pointing to 105 reports that were left unanswered and asserting that the commission must apply the law equally to all parties.
Bozhidar Bozhanov, co‑chair of Yes, Bulgaria, said:
The CEC, and more specifically the members representing Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, owe the public their resignations. The CEC is not simply a directorate of the Council of Ministers; it is not an extension of the executive branch and must not do exactly what Radev and Iotova tell it to do.
Democratic Bulgaria has called for the resignation of the CEC members from Progressive Bulgaria and Vazrazhdane, describing a “new assemblage” between those parties. MP Aleksandra Sterkova noted that the commission’s representatives had “attempted to avoid examining the report on its merits” and instead passed responsibility to other members.
The CEC’s decision was taken soon after it adopted Decision No. 417 on 27 October, which announced the first‑round results, and the commission forwarded portions of the complaint to the Bulgarian National Audit Office for further scrutiny. Critics argue the ruling is politically motivated, while the commission maintains its independence and that the statement was outside the scope of the election code.
The appeal by Yes, Bulgaria sets the stage for an extended legal contest that could challenge the impartiality of the electoral regulatory body and the limits of governmental influence in the run‑up to the second presidential round scheduled for next month.
