Sarafov’s Legitimacy - Political Reactions after the SCC Decision that Acting Prosecutor General No Longer Has Authority to Request Reopening of Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) has declined to reopen two criminal proceedings following a request from acting Prosecutor General, Borislav Sarafov. According to the court’s Criminal Chamber, Sarafov no longer holds the legitimacy to perform the functions of Chief Prosecutor, as more than six months have passed since the amendments to the Judicial System Act entered into force. These amendments set a six-month limit for an individual to serve as “acting” Chief Prosecutor.

• Supreme Court of Cassation: Acting Prosecutor General Sarafov No Longer Has Authority to Request Reopening of Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court judges clarified that Sarafov’s powers as acting Chief Prosecutor automatically ceased on 21 July of this year, when the six-month period stipulated in the law expired. The two rulings refer to a decision of the General Assembly of the SCC’s Criminal Chamber held on 18 September, which established that the powers of an acting Chief Prosecutor are terminated by law, and Sarafov lost the right to request the reopening of criminal proceedings.

The Prosecutor’s Office responded, stating that the ruling has no direct consequences for Sarafov, adding that the SCC’s Criminal Chamber ruling affects victims in criminal cases. They also reminded that Sarafov serves as acting Prosecutor General pursuant to a specific decision of the Prosecutors' College of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which can only be annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court, not the SCC.

President Rumen Radev comments

President Rumen Radev:
"I do not want to comment on the court’s decisions. However, the court clearly rules according to the law, which is very explicit regarding the conditions and time limits for temporarily holding this office. It is high time that our judicial system is organised in a way that ensures true rule of law, not rule under pressure on the judiciary."

Political reactions

The case sparked political responses. Democratic Bulgaria (DB) stated that following the SCC’s decision, it should be clear that Sarafov is no longer Chief Prosecutor. Former Justice Minister Atanas Slavov engaged in a debate with current Minister Georgi Georgiev.

Atanas Slavov, Member of Parliament for WCC-DB, said:
"Since 21 July, we do not have an acting Chief Prosecutor. This is a legal fact recognised by the SCC leadership. The key question now is: who is taking decisions regarding the prosecution? How will this unprecedented situation be resolved? Here lies the responsibility of the parliamentary majority and the Ministry of Justice to take steps to overcome this state crisis: convene an SJC session, raise the issue for discussion, and begin the procedure for electing a new SJC."

• Prosecutor's Office: The Decision of Supreme Court of Cassation Has No Consequences for Acting Prosecutor General

Justice Ministry and government responses

Georgi Georgiev, Minister of Justice:
"Regarding the election of a new SJC, criticism is coming from those who derailed the session to initiate this procedure. A qualified majority requires political consensus, which was blocked the first time we proposed starting the SJC election procedure. What did you do then? I remind you: together with colleagues from 'Vazrazhdane,' you left the chamber and broke the quorum."

GERB released a written statement, emphasising that it will not make political comments on decisions of the independent judiciary. They noted that just as they do not comment on specific criminal cases, they will not interpret specificl court rulings.

Legal opinions

Unsurprisingly, legal experts are divided. Some support the SCC’s position, while others—among them university professors and former magistrates—argue that it is not the role of the SCC’s Criminal Chamber to decide on this matter. They emphasise that the Prosecutor’s College of the SJC is the competent body to determine who serves as acting Prosecutor General, and under the law, only the Supreme Administrative Court can rule on such decisions.