The Constitutional Court has initiated a case following a request from a judicial panel of the Varna Appellate Court to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 173, paragraph 15 of the Judiciary Act, the court's press center announced.

Judge Yanaki Stoilov is the rapporteur for the case.

The Varna Appellate Court's request concerns whether the text in the Judiciary Act regarding the early termination of the chief prosecutor's term, the designation of an acting official, and the time period in which the same person performs these functions contradicts the Constitution.

The judicial panel notes that the request for the reopening of a criminal case they are considering is contingent on resolving the question of whether the person appointed to perform the functions of chief prosecutor (Borislav Sarafov) currently has the authority to request the reopening of a criminal case.

BTA recalls that on October 16, 2025, the Plenum of the Supreme Judicial Council decided not to request an authentic interpretation of the norm of Article 173, paragraph 15 of the Judiciary Act (ZSV) from the National Assembly.

Earlier, on October 7, the Judicial College decided to submit a proposal to the Plenum of the SJC to decide to submit a request to the National Assembly for an authentic interpretation of Article 173, paragraph 15 of the Judiciary Act.

Regarding the text of the ZSV, the members of the Prosecutor's College accepted that the provision is not applicable to the acting chief prosecutor Borislav Sarafov and confirmed his election to this position.

In early October, two panels of the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to initiate proceedings on requests filed by the acting chief prosecutor Borislav Sarafov for the reopening of criminal cases. According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, Sarafov cannot be the acting chief prosecutor.

The text of Article 173, paragraph 15 refers to the chief prosecutor and reads: Upon early termination or expiration of the term of office of the chief prosecutor, an acting official is appointed to the relevant functions, subject to the following condition: the same person is not entitled to perform the relevant functions for a period longer than six months, regardless of whether there have been interruptions in the performance of the functions.