Constitutional Check: KS Rules Exclusive Competence for Referendum Admissibility Rests with National Assembly

The Bulgarian Constitutional Court (KS) recently delivered a definitive interpretative decision on November 18, 2025, clarifying the precise boundaries of institutional authority regarding the initiation of a national referendum. This ruling arose in the crucial context of the former National Assembly (NS) Speaker’s refusal to submit President Radev’s proposal for a national plebiscite concerning potential Eurozone accession on January 1, 2026. The matter hinges on the delicate separation of powers and the constitutional mechanism for direct democracy, demanding immediate and rigorous analysis by legal scholars focused on constitutional governance.

In its authoritative disposition, the Court unambiguously determined that the Speaker of the National Assembly possesses no residual or unilateral power to adjudicate the admissibility requirements stipulated by law for a national referendum. Critically, the Court affirmed that the prerogative to evaluate and subsequently decide on holding a referendum rests exclusively with the National Assembly as a collective body, a competence mandated by Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution. This finding firmly establishes the boundary, moving the assessment of statutory criteria from an administrative checkpoint into the realm of core legislative deliberation.

The jurisprudential rationale employed by the twelve constitutional judges underscored the bedrock principle that the people constitute the singular source of state power, which must be exercised either directly or through the institutions expressly delineated in the Basic Law. Consequently, no single officeholder, including the NS Speaker, may arrogate the right to exercise a power that the Constitution allocates solely to the nationwide representative institution. The Court articulated that Parliament’s exclusive power to adopt the referendum decision inherently encompasses the exclusive competence to assess all related legal requirements for its admissibility.

Furthermore, the decision addresses a significant control deficit within the constitutional order. Unlike the acts of the National Assembly, which remain subject to constitutional review, the sole administrative acts issued by its President are excluded from such scrutiny. The Court correctly identified that permitting the Speaker to issue a solitary act that effectively blocks the exercise of the National Assembly’s exclusive constitutional competence is jurisprudentially intolerable. Such a mechanism would practically bypass the established control procedures and ultimately risk vitiating the supremacy of the Constitution within the exercise of state power, a consequence the Court’s decision now explicitly pre-empts.